Point of Law: “there is difference between existence of jurisdiction and exercise of jurisdiction. The existence of jurisdiction is reflected by the fact of amenabilities of the jurisdiction to attack in the collateral proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Shambhu Chopra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mahima Jaiswal and Sri. Saurabh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 and Sri. Krishna Ji Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 5.

FACTS

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of lubricants after obtaining registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act’) and the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPGST Act’). According to the petitioner as per division of work his case for the tax period 2017-18 (July, 2017 to March, 2018) was assigned to the Officer of Central Tax (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Central Officer’) but the show-cause notice dated 25.6.2021 for assessment under section 73 of CGST Act/UPGST Act was issued by the Officer of the State Tax (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Officer’) i.e. Dy. Commissioner, Commercial Tax Saharanpur, Sector 10, Saharanpur (B), Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner submitted reply to the show-cause notice but did not raise any objection as to the jurisdiction on the ground of assignment of the case to Central Officer. The proper officer under the Act completed the assessment proceedings and passed the assessment order under section 73 of the UPGST Act/CGST Act dated 9.8.2021 for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018. Aggrieved the aforesaid assessment order dated 9.8.2021 the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying to quash the show-cause notice (DRC-01) dated 25.6.2021 issued by the State Officer i.e. the respondent no. 4 and the assessment order dated 9.8.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3........

(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned show-cause notice and the impugned assessment order are without jurisdiction inasmuch as pursuant to the decision of the GST Council vide Agenda item no. 28 of the Minutes of the IX GST Council Meeting dated 16.1.2017, the designated committee passed the order no. 04/2018 dated 12.9.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh providing for single interface under the Act and whereby the petitioner i.e. taxpayer was assigned to the Central Government Officer. Therefore, the show-cause notices issued by the State Officer i.e. the respondent no. 4 and the impugned assessment order passed by him both are without jurisdiction and, therefore, deserve to be quashed.

(ii) Even though the petitioner has not raised any objection as to the jurisdiction before the proper officer who issued the impugned show-cause notice and passed the impugned assessment order, yet objection as to the jurisdiction can be well entertained in writ petition inasmuch as the question of jurisdiction goes to very root of the matter and renders the impugned show-cause notice and the impugned assessment order to be null and void being without jurisdiction.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned show-cause notice and the impugned orders.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

5. Relevant provisions for the purposes of the controversy involved in the present writ petition are the provisions of Section 2(21), Section 2(91), Section 6 and Section 9 of the CGST Act/UPGST Act, which reproduced below: