Amal Kumar Ghosh vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors

Held

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the writ petition. It acknowledged that the issue of which authority could assume jurisdiction had become academic due to the passage of time. However, it found it inappropriate for the Audit Commissionerate to initiate proceedings after the GST regime's advent. The Court directed the appropriate officer in the office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, Haldia CGST & CX Commissionerate, Medinipur, to issue a fresh notice to the appellant clearly stating the allegations. Upon receiving the notice, the appellant was directed to submit a reply, where he could raise the issue of jurisdiction. The appropriate authority would then adjudicate the matter after affording a personal hearing. The direction to issue the show cause notice was to be complied with within three weeks.

Facts

The appellant, Amal Kumar Ghosh, filed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of two authorities attempting to proceed over the same subject matter, specifically arguing that the Audit Commissionerate lacked jurisdiction after the GST regime's introduction. The tax periods in dispute were the financial years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018. Notices were issued in October 2018, and the writ petition was filed in 2019, leading to an order on January 29, 2019, permitting the Kolkata Audit-II, Commissionerate to proceed. This intra-court appeal was filed against that order. The Court noted that by efflux of time, the question of which authority could assume jurisdiction had become academic, but it was inappropriate for the Audit Commissionerate to initiate proceedings post-GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Audit Commissionerate has the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter after the advent of the GST regime, particularly concerning the financial years 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018? The appellant argued that the Audit Commissionerate lacked jurisdiction post-GST. The revenue authorities did not explicitly argue for the Audit Commissionerate's jurisdiction but submitted that the concerned commissionerate with jurisdiction over the appellant would initiate appropriate action. The Court considered the appropriateness of the Audit Commissionerate initiating proceedings at this juncture.