IMPORTANT POINT
Proper service of notices is essential for upholding natural justice, and jurisdiction must be established based on the correct address of the party involved.

JUDGMENT :

(Devashis Baruah, J.)

Heard Mr. AK Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. SC Keyal, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 primarily on two grounds: First, that the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 is in violation to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, prior to passing of the said impugned order, the petitioner was not issued the show cause notice. The second ground which has been taken is that the respondent No.2 does not have the jurisdiction in view of the fact that the petitioner or his proprietorship concern do not come within the jurisdiction of the Commissionerate of Dibrugarh, as no taxable event had taken place within the said Commissionerate.

3. For appreciating the said submissions, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. The petitioner herein is the proprietor of a firm in the name and style of ‘M/s. M.T Enterprise’. The petitioner and his firm is registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short, the ‘CGST Act’) and the Principal place of business is Techi Building, Model Village, Naharlagun, Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh: 791110. The petitioner has also been allotted a GST No. bearing 12AIYPT2833LIZM. As per the said registration certificate, the petitioner’s proprietorship firm namely, M/s. M.T.Enterprise do not have any additional place of business in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is also seen from Annexure-1 to the writ petition which is a Form 26AS that the petitioner’s PAN number is AIYPT2833L and the address mentioned therein is E-I Pang, Sagalee, Pampum Pare district, Sagalee, Arunachal Pradesh 791112. The records further show that the jurisdictional office under the CGST Act, 2017 in respect of the petitioner and his firm is the office of the Commissionerate CGST and Customs, Sector –A Naharlagun 791110.

4. In the backdrop of the above, it is relevant to take note of that on 30.07.2021, a communication was issued to the petitioner in the address namely No.1 Ghilamara, Lakhimpur 787053 by the Superintendent of Central Goods and Service Tax, North Lakhimpur Range. Thereafter, another similar notice was also issued to the petitioner on 11.08.2021 by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, North Lakhimpur Range. Subsequent thereto the Superintendent (Adj.) CGST having its Office at Milan Nagar Lane ‘F’ CR Building, Dibrugarh had issued a notice to the petitioner at the address i.e. No.1 Ghilamara, North Lakhimpur: 787053. Pursuant thereto on 25.11.2022, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order.

5. It is further relevant to take note of from a perusal of the impugned order that the PAN number of the petitioner which was mentioned i.e. AIYPT2833L. It is also seen from paragraph 1.15 of the impugned order that the show cause notice was returned undelivered from the address of the noticee i.e. the petitioner with the remark ‘Addressee Left, Return to Sender’ and under such circumstances, the show cause notice was pasted in the Notice Board of the Divisional Office as well as in the Notice Board of the Hqrs. Office at Dibrugarh. It is further seen from the impugned order itself that the respondent No.2 has assumed that the notice was duly issued and the petitioner inspite of repeated opportunities being given did not avail the same.

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:

6. Mr. AK Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follow:

(A). There is no material on record to show that the petitioner had any Office at No.1 Ghilamara, North Lakhimpur. The petitioner’s address is only at Naharlagun in Papum Pare district, Arunachal Pradesh and the jurisdictional Commissionerate under the CGST Act of 2017 is the Commissioner of CGST, Naharlagun. He further submitted that even in the Form 26AS which was made the basis of passing the impugne