Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
- 0 - Views

Jurisdiction to adjudicate all connected SCNs lies with the Commissionerate that issues the SCN with the highest demandTop of Form

Date 27 Jan 2024
Written By
Multiple SCNs: Jurisdiction Lies with Commissionerate Issuing Highest Demand, Says Court in Online Gaming Case.
The Delhi High Court ruled that when multiple Show Cause Notices (SCNs) are issued, the jurisdiction to adjudicate lies with the Commissionerate that issued the SCN with the highest demand. In the case involving a technology company engaged in online gaming, the court determined that the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane, had jurisdiction due to the highest demand being raised there. The court dismissed the petition challenging this jurisdiction, instructing the concerned officer to consider all defenses and pass a detailed order if any are rejected. The petition was thus disposed of. - (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aasanvish technology (P.) Ltd v. Director General of GST Intelligence [2023 (12) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the matter for adjudication can be placed before an officer who exercises jurisdiction in respect of the Noticees, where multiple notices have been issued, in whose case the maximum demand has been raised. Thus, disposed of the writ petition.

Facts:

Aasanvish Technology (P.) Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) was engaged in providing services of online gaming. They were issued multiple SCN (“Impugned SCN”) dated September 15, 2023. The liability was charged for the period when the Petitioner was not active. The Petitioner did not have any wherewithal to provide any such service.

The Impugned SCN was issued by the Additional Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit. The Petitioner contended that the Impugned SCN was to be adjudicated by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane and the Impugned SCN related to the Petitioner’s place of business at Hyderabad, Telangana with separate registration.

The Director General of GST Intelligence (“the Respondent”) referred Para 7.1 of Circular dated February 9, 2018, amended by Circular dated March 12, 2022, the matter for adjudication can be placed before an officer, who exercises jurisdiction in respect of the noticee (where multiple notices have been issued), in whose case the maximum demand has been raised. He stated that in the present case, multiple notices have been issued and the maximum demand is proposed to be raised under the notice issued to Belz Tech Private Limited. Therefore, the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the said notice.

Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Notice the present writ was filed by the Petitioner.

Issue:

Whether the matter for adjudication can be referred to the officer with jurisdiction, where multiple notices are involved, and the maximum demand has been raised?

Held:

The Delhi High Court in 2023 (12) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT held as under:

  • Held that, Para 7.1 of Circular dated February 9, 2018, amended by Circular dated March 12, 2022, would be applicable where the matter for adjudication can be placed before an officer, who exercises jurisdiction where maximum demand has been raised. Therefore, the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the said notice.
  • Held that, the Petitioner's contention that the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the impugned SCN is, thus, unmerited. The Commissionerate issuing the Impugned SCN to the Petitioner with the highest demand holds jurisdiction to adjudicate all connected SCN.
  • Directed that, the concerned officer is required to consider all contentions and defenses raised by the Petitioner. And, if he does not accept any of them, he is required to pass a speaking order. Hence, the petition was disposed of.

Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)

0 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide

No Replies are present for this Article

Recent Articles