Asok Roy vs. The Commissioner (Appeals) And Anr

Facts

The petitioner, Asok Roy, challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated December 20, 2023, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Guwahati, and an Order-in-Original dated October 10, 2022, passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Agartala. The Order-in-Original raised a demand of Rs. 47,24,701/- for Service Tax, Swachh Bharat Cess, and Krishi Kalyan Cess, along with interest and penalty for the Financial Year 2016-17. The petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsuccessful. The revenue raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court, stating the Order-in-Original was passed by the Tripura jurisdictional authority. The revenue also contended that the appeal was decided on grounds of limitation and non-deposit of statutory amounts, not on merits.

Held

The Court considered the preliminary objection raised by the revenue. It noted that the time prescribed for preferring an appeal is 60 days, extendable by 30 days, with no specific provision for condonation of delay. The Court also acknowledged the issue of non-deposit of the statutory amount. The Court found that these grounds (limitation and non-deposit) did not touch upon the merits of the petitioner's case. Therefore, the Court concluded that assuming jurisdiction solely because an appellate authority was located in Guwahati might not be proper. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to file it before the appropriate High Court. The Court explicitly stated that no observations touching upon the merits of the case were made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Gauhati High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when the Order-in-Original was passed by an authority in Tripura, and the appellate authority is located in Guwahati? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the involvement of the appellate authority in Guwahati conferred jurisdiction upon the Gauhati High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Order-in-Original was passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner in Tripura, and therefore, the Gauhati High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The revenue further contended that the appellate authority's decision was based on limitation and non-deposit of statutory amounts, which were not matters touching the merits of the case and therefore not challengeable on grounds of jurisdiction alone.