The assessment and collection of integrated tax on imported goods falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of customs authorities under the customs law. Furthermore, state tax authorities lack the power to initiate proceedings against taxpayers administratively assigned to the central administration based on existing cross-empowerment provisions.

ORDER :

R. Raghunandan Rao, J.

Heard Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader of Commercial Tax, appearing for the respondents.

2. The first petitioner is a limited Company, which is registered under the CGST Act and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying aquatic feed. For the purposes of manufacturing the said aquatic feed, the 1st petitioner imports certain Inputs, such as fish meal, soya, algal oil. The petitioner had claimed exemption from payment of tax, under the IGST Act, in relation to the import of some of these inputs in relation to the assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23. It may also be recorded that the 1st petitioner has been allotted to the Central Jurisdiction and not the State Jurisdiction.

3. The 1st respondent, Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, on the basis of an authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner, Sales tax, Rajamahendravaram, had inspected the business place of the 1st petitioner on 11.11.2022. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued an intimation of tax, ascertained as being payable, under Section 73(5) of the GST Act, read with Rule 142(1A), on 19.12.2022. In this intimation, the 1st respondent informed the 1st petitioner that some of the claims, of the 1st petitioner, relating to exemption and classification of goods was not correct and sought an explanation from the 1st petitioner. The claim of the petitioner for exemption on the supply of Rovimix AVP Mineral, which is an input in the manufacturing of aquatic feed, in the course of import, and import of fishing meal was also sought to be disputed. The 1st petitioner, replied to this intimation, by a reply, dated 12.01.2023. In this reply, the 1st petitioner, replied on the merits of the issues, raised in the said intimation. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a second intimation, dated 10.04.2023. This Intimation, which is in the form of a show cause notice has been challenged, along with Circular No.80/54/2018-GST, dated 31.12.2018, issued by the Tax Revenue Unit, Department of Revenue, which denied the benefit of exemption given by the Central Government under an exemption Notification issued under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act.

4. The case of the petitioners, as reiterated by Sri K. Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner is as follows:

i) It is the admitted case of the 1st respondent that the 1st petitioner has been allocated to the Central Jurisdiction. As such no State GST authority can initiate any proceedings against the 1st petitioner;

ii) The IGST Act read with the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India bar any State Authority, under the GST Acts, to initiate, continue or complete any proceedings under the IGST Act;

iii) Section 2(3) and Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the proviso to Section 5(1) of the IGST Act makes it clear that the jurisdiction to assess the IGST payable, in the course of import of goods, into India, vests solely with the authorities under the Customs Act and no authority under any of the GST Acts can undertake such an exercise;

iv) Circular No. 80/54/2018-GST, dated 31.12.2018, is ultra vires the exemption notification, under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act as the said circular imposes conditions which were not envisaged in the exemption Notification Issued under Section 6(1) of the IGST Act. Further, the said Circular had already been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Jenefa India vs. Union of India, (2021) 95 GSTR 131 : 2021 SCC Online mad 13910, by a Judgment dated 05.10.2021 in W.P(MP) 16770 to 16776 of 2019.

5. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that various issues which had not been raised in the intimation, dated 19.12.2022, have been raised in the fresh intimation, dated 10.04.2023, and the same is not permissible.

6. The 1st respondent had fil