Md. Badur Jaman vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court prima facie opined that the ratio laid down in the cited Supreme Court cases, specifically Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Ltd., would be applicable to the present case. This ratio suggests that the jurisdiction for hearing appeals lies with the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the original assessing officer is situated. Therefore, the Gauhati High Court was of the prima facie view that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, as the original order was passed by an authority in Imphal, Manipur. Consequently, the petitioner sought and was granted leave to withdraw the writ petition to approach the High Court of Judicature at Manipur. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal or the limitation issue, as the petition was disposed of on withdrawal.

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Badur Jaman, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging an order dated March 14, 2023, passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Guwahati. This order had rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of being barred by limitation. The original order was passed by the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, Imphal Range-I, Zone-8, Imphal East, Thoubal & Kakching District, Manipur. The petitioner contended that due to an internet ban in Manipur, he was unable to file his appeal before the authorities in Imphal and was compelled to approach the appellate authority in Guwahati. The respondents argued that the Gauhati High Court lacked jurisdiction as the original order was passed by an authority in Imphal, and therefore, only the High Court of Manipur would have jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Gauhati High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging an appellate order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Guwahati, when the original order was passed by a Superintendent of CGST based in Imphal, Manipur? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to an internet ban in Manipur, he was unable to file his appeal within the prescribed time in Imphal and was forced to approach the appellate authority in Guwahati. This necessitated filing the writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. Revenue's contention: The respondent revenue authorities argued that the Gauhati High Court lacks jurisdiction. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s Balak Capital Pvt. Ltd. (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 982), which quoted Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Ltd. ((2002) 9 SCC 1). This precedent held that an appeal against an ITAT decision lies only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer who passed the assessment order is situated. The revenue contended that this principle applies to the present case, implying jurisdiction lies with the High Court of Manipur.