Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. The Designated Committee

WP/6729/2022HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01014156202215 October 2024Bench: M.I.ARUN4 pages

For Petitioner: SRI. BHARATH JANARTHANAN, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Larsen & Toubro Limited, filed a declaration under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, for the tax period March 2013 to August 2015. This declaration was intended to be treated as a declaration under the litigation scheme, with a decision to be made by the Designated Committee (Respondent No. 1). However, the impugned order dated 09.03.2020 was passed by Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, in his individual official capacity, rejecting the petitioner's declaration. The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds that Respondent No. 2 lacked the necessary jurisdiction to pass such an order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 09.03.2020, passed by Respondent No. 2, was without jurisdiction. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel fairly submitted that the jurisdiction was vested with Respondent No. 1, the Designated Committee. Consequently, the Court set aside the order passed by Respondent No. 2. The matter was remanded back to Respondent No. 1 with a direction to consider the petitioner's case in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. The Court found that the order was passed by an authority lacking the necessary jurisdictional power, rendering it invalid. The ratio decidendi is that an order passed by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and must be set aside, with the matter being remanded to the competent authority for adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, had the jurisdiction to pass an order rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioner under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, when such power was vested with the Designated Committee (Respondent No. 1)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 2 did not possess the requisite jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, as the authority to decide on declarations under the Scheme was vested with the Designated Committee (Respondent No. 1). Revenue's contention: The learned counsel appearing for the revenue conceded that the jurisdiction was indeed vested with Respondent No. 1.

Sections Cited

Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - NC: 2024:KHC:41564 WP No. 6729 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 6729 OF 2022 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT L & T HOUSE, N M MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001. AND HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT NO.19, 1ST AND 2ND FLOOR, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS HEAD-CORPORATE INDIRECT TAXATION COMPLIANCE MR. RAJU IYER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARATH JANARTHANAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DESIGNATED COMMITTEE, CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE, BENGALURU SOUTH, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE, Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:41564 WP No. 6729 of 2022 BENGALURU SOUTH, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX CENTRAL GST COMMISSIONERATE, BENGALURU SOUTH, C.R.BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX O/O THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, SOUTH DIVISION-4, 7TH FLOOR, C WING, KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APPEALS-1) O/O THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX (APEEALS-1) TRAFFIC TRANSIT MANAGEMENT CENTRE, BMTC BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, ABOVE BMTC BUS STAND, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 071. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

ORDER BEARING NO.C.No.IV/03/282/2019-20 DATED 09.03.2020 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A REJECTING THE DECLARATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SVLDRS, 2019 AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN NC: 2024:KHC:41564 ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 09.03.2020 passed by respondent No.2, the assessee has filed this writ petition.

Pursuant to the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the petitioner filed a declaration for the period from March, 2013 to August, 2015. The same had to be treated as a declaration under the litigation scheme and a decision had to be taken by the committee constituted for the said purpose, which is impleaded in the instant writ petition as respondent No.

Respondent No.2 is a member of the said committee. However, in the instant case, instead of respondent No.1 taking a decision in respect of declaration filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 has taken a decision in his individual official capacity and has passed the impugned order. The same is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.2 does not have the necessary juri iction to pass the same. NC: 2024:KHC:41564

Learned counsel appearing for the revenue fairly submits that the juri iction is vested with respondent No.1. 4. As the impugned order is passed without juri iction by respondent No.2, the same is liable to be set aside and remanded back to respondent No.1 with a direction to adjudicate the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The impugned order dated 09.03.2020 bearing No.C.No.IV/03/282/2019-20 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition passed by respondent No.2 is hereby set aside;

ii) The matter stands remanded back to respondent No.1 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereafter as expeditiously as possible.

iii) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.