IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Koenig Solutions Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5040 of 2021 & CM Appl. 15429 of 2021
Decided On : 20-07-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction over gst officers and summary of proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's claim regarding jurisdiction of central tax officers. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's decision on the disposal of the writ petition. (Para 6) |
| 4. order upload and forwarding instructions. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"A) issue a Writ of Declaration/certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/order/direction against the Respondents by declaring that the Central Tax Officers (GST officer) (Respondents No. 2 and 3) have no jurisdiction over the Petitioner as the jurisdiction has been assigned to State Tax Officers in view of the decisions taken by the GST Council vide Circular No. 01/2017 dated 20.09.2017, a constitutional body constituted under Article 279A of the Constitution of India, for which the Respondent No. 1 is one of the members;
B) issue a Writ of Declaration/certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/order/direction against the Respondents by declaring that the Central Tax Officers (GST officer) (Respondents No. 2 and 3) are barred to exercise the power in terms of the provisions of section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the power already exercised by the State GST officer;
C) issue a Writ of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/order/direction against the Respondents by quashing the proceeding/inquiry initiated by the Respondents against the Petitioner by declaring the same is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and motivated, and the quashed the impugned summons dated 30.03.2021 issued by the Respondent No. 3 from the office of the Respondent No. 2 as without application of mind, illegal and arbitrary just to harass the petitioner;"
3. Today, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent have withdrawn and closed the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide Impugned Summons dated 30.04.2021. The relevant portion of the affidavit screen shared by the learned counsel for the respondent is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Para 13.......In fact, this office has confirmed this fact from state GST authority and State GST authority vide e-mail dated 18.05.2021 informed & confirmed deposition of above referred amount, so this office has withdrawn and closed the inquiry proceeding initiated vide summons dated 30.03.2021. This has been communicated to the party vide this office even numbered letter 7299 dated 20.05.2021."
4. The learned counsel for the respondent has also screen shared the letter dated 20.05.2021 and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Subject: Withdrawal of inquiry proceedings with regards to M/s Koenig Solution Pvt. Ltd.-reg
Please refer to the inquiry proceedings initiated under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 vide which summon was issued under C. No. DW/GST/AE/PE/Group-4/GSTR- 9C/782/2021/6282 dated 30.03.2021 for recovery of Rs. 20,94,361/-. This amount of Rs. 20,94,361/- was shown as additional liability in the GSTR-9C (copy enclosed). As deposition of this amount was not disclosed/declared in GST returns, a recovery proceedings were initiated as above.
Since this was admitted liability, the above action was taken. No reply or response was received from your end in this regard, until notice filing of Writ Petition No. 5040/2021 dated 22.04.2021 was received wherein it was stated that all dues have been discharged in the matter. Consequent upon the confirmation received from GSTO Ward 55, Department of Trade and Taxes, vide e-mail dated 18.05.2021 inquiry proceedings initiated vide aforesaid summons dated 30.03.2021 are withdrawn and closed. This issue with the approval of Competent Authority."
5. However the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Central Tax Officers (GST Officers) have no jurisdiction over the petitioner as the jurisdiction has been assigned t
Central Tax Officers lack jurisdiction over matters assigned to State Tax Officers; withdrawal of inquiry renders jurisdictional issues moot.
The court emphasized that the issue of jurisdiction cannot be decided as the inquiry proceedings have been withdrawn and closed, leaving the question of law open for future proceedings.
Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn upon petitioner's counsel endorsement.
The Superintendent's authority under the CGST Act is limited by circular guidelines, and any order exceeding this limit is without jurisdiction.
The court ruled that the Circular and Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act do not prevent multiple jurisdictions from conducting unified investigations when necessary, reaffirming the court's discretion t....
Compliance with mandatory requirements of Section 75(4) of Goods and Service Tax enactments and availability of alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner under Section 107
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.