Lack of inherent jurisdiction makes a parallel tax demand void, and delay cannot validate a nullity.

A demand and recovery action issued by a non-jurisdictional authority for transactions already assessed by the competent authority was treated as without inherent jurisdiction and a nullity. The parallel order in original, recovery proceedings, and consequential steps were therefore unsustainable. The rejection of the recall application and the delayed appeal did not cure the defect, because an order passed without jurisdiction cannot be validated by limitation or by failure to challenge it earlier. The writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a demand and consequential recovery proceedings initiated by a non-jurisdictional authority for the same period and transactions already assessed by the jurisdictional authority were without jurisdiction and void; (ii) Whether the rejection of the recall application and the delayed appeal could sustain such a demand.

Issue (i): Whether a demand and consequential recovery proceedings initiated by a non-jurisdictional authority for the same period and transactions already assessed by the jurisdictional authority were without jurisdiction and void.

Analysis: The petitioner was registered with the jurisdictional assessing authority, which had already assessed the relevant services for the same periods and transactions. A parallel adjudication by another division on the same subject matter was held to be impermissible. The charging, valuation, and levy scheme under the service tax provisions did not permit double assessment, and a demand raised without jurisdiction could not be treated as legally recoverable. An order passed without inherent jurisdiction was treated as a nullity and could be challenged even at a later stage.

Conclusion: The parallel order in original, the recovery action, and all consequential proceedings were void and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of the recall application and the delayed appeal could sustain such a demand.

Analysis: The fact that the petitioner had not earlier challenged the ex parte order did not cure the fundamental defect of jurisdiction. Once the authority's lack of jurisdiction was apparent, the proper course was recall of the order. A time-barred appeal could not validate an order that was a complete nullity. The later appellate refusal on limitation therefore did not save the demand or the consequential recovery steps.

Conclusion: The order rejecting recall and the appellate order dismissing the appeal as delayed were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned orders were set aside because the demand had been raised by an authority lacking jurisdiction over the same taxable transactions already assessed by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand raised without inherent jurisdiction, particularly on the same transactions already assessed by the competent authority, is a nullity and cannot be validated by delay, finality, or failure to file an earlier appeal.

---