M/S Avinash Cargo PVT LTD Throu. Its Director Ravindra Anant Jankar vs. The Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Commisionrate

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Avinash Cargo Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an Order in Original issued by the Navi Mumbai Commissionerate. The Petitioner contended that this order, demanding tax and penalty of Rs. 20,91,98,168/-, was passed without jurisdiction as their central registration number was with the Kolhapur Commissionerate. The Petitioner had also filed a rectification application pointing out this jurisdictional issue, which was rejected. The Petitioner had made written submissions on 18th November 2022 and 23rd November 2022, raising the jurisdiction point, but did not appear for personal hearings. The Respondent argued that the Petitioner failed to avail the opportunities for personal hearing and did not submit a reply to the show cause notice.

Held

The Court held that the issue of jurisdiction was a pure jurisdictional issue that needed to be gone into. It was true that the Petitioner did not appear before the Adjudicating Authority, but the Petitioner's specific stand was that the company had surrendered the service tax registration in respect of which the impugned show cause notice was issued and had obtained a Central Registration number at Kolhapur. Since the issue went to the root of the jurisdiction and the written submissions made by the Petitioner should have been dealt with, the Court was inclined to quash and set aside the impugned Order. The matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the show cause notice on its own merits and in accordance with law, after considering the Petitioner's reply and supporting documents. No observations were made on the merits of the rival contentions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Navi Mumbai Commissionerate had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and pass the Order in Original against the Petitioner, considering the Petitioner's central registration was with the Kolhapur Commissionerate and a previous registration had allegedly been surrendered? (Question of law) Petitioner's contentions: The Navi Mumbai Commissionerate lacked jurisdiction as the Petitioner's central registration was with the Kolhapur Commissionerate. The Petitioner had surrendered the service tax registration in respect of which the show cause notice was issued. The written submissions made by the Petitioner, including the jurisdictional issue, were not properly considered. Respondent's contentions: The Petitioner did not submit a reply to the show cause notice and failed to avail the opportunities for personal hearings provided on multiple dates. Therefore, the Authority was justified in rejecting the rectification application and passing the impugned order.