Gnanaprakasam Singaraj vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction. Citing its previous decision in Tvl. Varadhan Infrastructure vs. The Special Secretary, the Court reiterated that Section 6(1) of the GST Enactments empowers the Government to issue notifications for cross-empowerment on the recommendation of the GST Council. However, in the absence of such notifications for assessment proceedings (other than for refunds), State Authorities lack jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment proceedings of an assessee assigned to Central Authorities, and vice-versa. The Court found that the respondent State Authority had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned proceedings. However, acknowledging that a case might be made out against the petitioner, the Court directed that appropriate proceedings should be initiated by the Authority to whom the petitioner is assigned (Central Authority). The matter was remitted back to the respondent to decide whether to refer the matter to the Central Authority or to pass orders if they wished to do so, with a direction for the petitioner to provide a reply to the prior notice issued by the Central Authority. The time taken for the proceedings and pendency of the writ petitions was excluded for limitation purposes.

Facts

The petitioner, Gnanaprakasam Singaraj, proprietor of Tvl. Michaelraj Textiles, filed two writ petitions challenging Orders-in-Original dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajapalayam I Asst. Circle. These orders pertained to the tax periods 2020-21 and 2021-22. The petitioner contended that they are assessed by Central Authorities and therefore, State Authorities lack jurisdiction. The petitioner also argued that they appeared before the respondent on 05.09.2023, submitted documents for earlier years (2017-18 to 2019-20), and requested further time for the impugned years. However, the respondent proceeded to pass the orders without granting sufficient opportunity. The petitioner sought to quash the orders for violating principles of natural justice and GST Acts.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Orders-in-Original, passed by the State Tax Authority for the tax periods 2020-21 and 2021-22, are without jurisdiction, considering the petitioner is assessed to Central Authorities, and in light of Section 6 of the respective GST Enactments and Circular No.01/2017 dated 20.09.2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that as they are assessed by Central Authorities, the State Authority has no jurisdiction to pass orders for the impugned periods. They relied on the principle that cross-empowerment requires specific notifications under Section 6 of the GST Acts, which were absent for assessment proceedings, except for refunds. They also contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as they were not granted sufficient time to furnish documents for the impugned periods. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not present specific arguments on jurisdiction or natural justice in the provided text, but implicitly defended the impugned orders by their appearance.