D. Justin Kumar vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of CGST And C.Excise

Facts

The petitioner, D. Justin Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original No. 32/AC/GST/2024, dated 31.05.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and C.Excise, Tirunelveli Division. The petitioner contended that State GST Officers had already adjudicated cases for the tax periods 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021 on the same subject. The petitioner argued that the respondent's subsequent order on the same subject and for the same periods violated Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and constituted double taxation. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative appeal remedy before the Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals) under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and had approached the High Court directly without exhausting this remedy.

Held

The Court noted the respondent's submission that the petitioner possessed an appeal remedy under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, before the Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals), Madurai. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner liberty to approach the appellate authority. The petitioner was permitted to raise all grounds, including those raised in the writ petition, before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if an appeal was filed within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order, the appellate authority should entertain it without insisting on the limitation period. The appellate authority was further directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with the law within two months thereafter. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original No. 32/AC/GST/2024, dated 31.05.2024, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and C.Excise, Tirunelveli Division, is illegal and arbitrary for violating Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, by passing an order on the same subject and tax periods already adjudicated by State GST Officers, thereby leading to double taxation? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent's order was contrary to the legislative mandate of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act, 2017, as State GST officers had already passed orders for the same tax periods (2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021) on the identical subject matter. This action, according to the petitioner, amounted to double taxation and rendered the impugned order liable for quashing. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner had an available statutory remedy of appeal before the Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and that the petitioner had prematurely approached the High Court without availing this remedy.