Brief Facts
Assessee was under administrative jurisdiction of Central Tax Officer pursuant to guidelines issued by the GST Council for division of taxpayer base between the Centre and States to ensure single interface. However, the State Tax Officer (who is also a Proper Officer having territorial jurisdiction) issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for assessment under Section 73 of CGST Act / UPGST Act. The assessee did not raise any objection to jurisdiction. Rather, he replied to the SCN issued by the State Tax Officer. The latter completed the proceedings and passed the assessment order. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Writ Court to quash the SCN and the order on the ground that it is without jurisdiction.
ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
The Supreme Court had explained[1] the consequence of submitting to jurisdiction wherein if a person has submitted to the jurisdiction of the authority, he cannot challenge the proceedings on the lack of jurisdiction of the said authority in further appellate proceedings.
Similarly, the Apex Court had explained[2] the difference between "existence of jurisdiction" and "exercise of jurisdiction" wherein if jurisdiction is exercised with material irregularity or with illegality, it would constitute jurisdictional error. However, if a court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit but in exercise of jurisdiction, a mistake has been committed, though it would be a jurisdictional error but not lack of it. It may be a jurisdictional error open for interference in appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad observed[3] that it is not a case that the state tax officer lacks inherent jurisdiction but it is a case where the jurisdiction has been exercised by the state tax officer in the absence of any objection or pointing out by the assessee that the case has been assigned to a central tax officer. Rather, the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and allowed the order to be passed by the state tax officer. Had the assessee objected to it at the initial stage or during the course of assessment proceedings, the position could have been rectified by the state tax officer by informing the central tax officer to complete the assessment proceedings.
Thus, the Hon'ble High Court ruled that the impugned show cause notice and the impugned assessment order do not suffer from any inherent lack of jurisdiction.
[1] (2011) 2 SCC 654 (para 29)
[2] (2020) 6 SCC 557 (para 37)
[3] Order dated February 09, 2022 under Writ Tax No.1169 of 2021
Analysis / Comments
In view of the above, it is imperative that the taxpayers should raise objection before submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the officer if they sense any jurisdiction-related issues.
On a similar note, it is pertinent to refer Section 160(2) of the CGST Act. According to the said provision, service of any notice / order / communication shall not be called in question:
- if the notice / order / communication has already been acted upon by the addressee; or
- where such service has not been called in question at or in the earlier proceedings commenced, continued or finalised pursuant to such notice / order / communication.
