Biplab Mondal vs. Additional Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, Siliguri Commissionerate And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Biplab Mondal, filed a writ petition (WPA 2267 of 2025) before the Calcutta High Court, challenging an order passed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, by the Siliguri Commissionerate. The petitioner argued that despite the order originating from the Siliguri Commissionerate, the matter should be heard by the principal bench of the High Court because his office and place of business are located in Dinajpur. He relied on the jurisdiction list published by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The respondents, representing the CGST & CX and the Union of India, were also present. The core of the dispute, beyond the substantive GST issue, revolved around the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the matter ought to be decided by the Hon'ble Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri. The reasoning was based on the notification dated 7th February, 2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice. This notification not only established the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri but also vested it with the powers to hear cases arising from the districts of Darjeeling, Kalimpong, Jalpaiguri, and Coochbihar in the State of West Bengal. The Court found that the establishment of this Circuit Bench and its designated jurisdiction superseded the petitioner's argument based on his place of business being in Dinajpur and the CBIC's jurisdiction list, in the context of the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. The operative direction was to transmit the records of the case to the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri for adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the principal bench of the Calcutta High Court has the jurisdiction to hear the present writ petition, considering the establishment of a Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, in light of the notification dated 7th February, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Justice)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the principal bench has jurisdiction because his office and place of business are in Dinajpur, and he relied on the jurisdiction list published by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs to support this claim, implying that Dinajpur falls within the purview of the principal bench's territorial jurisdiction for such matters. Revenue/State's contention: The revenue authorities did not explicitly argue against the petitioner's claim of jurisdiction in the provided text. However, the Court's decision implies a consideration of the notification establishing the Circuit Bench. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the Union of India regarding the jurisdiction.