N/S.John Buildwell INDIA PVT LTD vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Central GST

Held

The Court acknowledged that while writ petitions are generally not entertained when statutory appeal remedies exist, exceptions apply, particularly when an order is challenged on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Court found merit in the appellant's submission that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction, as supported by the precedent in Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure's case. This case clearly stated that Central GST officers cannot interfere with assessees assigned to State Authorities in the absence of cross-empowerment. The Court noted that this crucial aspect of jurisdiction was not brought to the attention of the learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition based solely on the availability of the appellate remedy. Therefore, the Court held that the issue of cross-jurisdiction was a significant factor that warranted consideration. The Court did not decide on the merits of the jurisdictional issue itself but allowed the appellant to file a review application before the learned Single Judge to bring the relevant judgments and arguments regarding jurisdiction to the court's notice.

Facts

The appellant, M/s. John Buildwell India Pvt Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central GST, Tirunelveli. The Writ Court dismissed the petition on April 4, 2024, citing the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the TNGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 108 of the TNGST Rules, 2017. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal against this dismissal. The appellant argued that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction, as their business had been assigned to State Authorities. They relied on a previous judgment of the same High Court in Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure vs. The Special Secretary, Head of the GST Council Secretariat and others, dated March 11, 2024, which held that Central GST officers cannot interfere with assessees assigned to State Authorities in the absence of cross-empowerment notifications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Writ Court erred in dismissing the writ petition solely on the ground of availability of an alternative appellate remedy, without considering the appellant's contention that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction? 2. Whether an assessment order passed by a tax authority without jurisdiction can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even when an alternative statutory appeal remedy exists? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant contended that the assessment order was passed by the Central GST authorities despite their assignment to State Authorities, rendering the order without jurisdiction. They relied on the judgment in Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure's case, which held that actions taken by authorities other than those to whom an assessee is assigned are without jurisdiction. They argued that this jurisdictional defect warranted interference by the Writ Court, overriding the usual bar of alternative remedy. The appellant also submitted that this crucial judgment was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when the writ petition was heard. Respondent's Arguments: The revenue authorities argued that the issue of jurisdiction was not raised before the Writ Court, and therefore, the learned Single Judge had no occasion to consider it. They contended that at the appellate stage, this point cannot be raised to set aside the assessment order.