Rcc Infraventures LTD. Through Its Authorized Representative Shri Shibu Jhony vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court noted that the impugned order was passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra Commissionerate, Uttar Pradesh, and the petitioner's registered office is also in Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the appeal would lie to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, as advised in the impugned order. The Court found that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal available. The petitioner's counsel then prayed for withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to approach the Appellant Authority. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted.

Facts

The petitioner, RCC Infraventures Ltd., filed a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging an order dated 27/12/2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra Commissionerate. This order imposed a tax demand of Rs. 45,83,26,728/- along with interest and recommended prosecution under Section 132(1) of the GST Act. The impugned order itself indicated that the petitioner had a remedy of appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, within 90 days. The petitioner approached the High Court instead of availing this alternative remedy. The respondents argued that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner's counsel, after arguing at length, sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the appellate authority, citing confusion due to the order covering GST returns from 13 states with different GSTINs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition, considering the impugned order was passed by an authority in Uttar Pradesh and the petitioner's registered office is in Agra, Uttar Pradesh, despite the petitioner having GSTINs in multiple states. Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that there was confusion in challenging the order before the correct appellate authority due to the composite nature of the order covering GST returns from 13 states with different GSTINs. Respondents: Submitted that the Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant Writ Petition, in addition to the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal.