Writ petition dismissed as GST assessment under Section 73 valid with proper territorial jurisdiction and procedural compliance

The AP HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an assessment order under Section 73 of the GST Act. The court held that the proper officer had valid authority to assess the case within his territorial jurisdiction despite arguments about authorization procedures. The HC found that prescribed procedures under Rule 142 were followed, including issuance of Form GST DRC-01A and providing opportunity for documentary evidence. The court ruled that a single assessment order for IGST, SGST and CGST was permissible as no legal provision prohibited such procedure and no prejudice was demonstrated. The petition was dismissed as factual disputes regarding tax liability fell outside the scope of Article 226 jurisdiction when appellate remedies were available.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the assessing authority.
2. Proper Officer for assessment.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under CGST and IGST Acts.
4. Legality of a single assessment order for IGST, CGST, and SGST.
5. Factual determination of intra-state vs. inter-state supply.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority:
The petitioner contested the imposition of GST by Andhra Pradesh on works executed in Telangana, claiming it was beyond the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh authorities. The court noted that the petitioner was assessed by an officer specified in the relevant notification and that no prejudice would be caused by such assessment. It was held that the assessing officer had territorial jurisdiction and was competent to pass the assessment order.

2. Proper Officer for Assessment:
The petitioner argued that the first respondent was not the proper officer as per the authorization given. The court referred to Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, which defines "Proper Officer" and concluded that the first respondent, being one of the officers mentioned in the notification, was indeed the proper officer. The court emphasized that the authorization to inspect did not preclude the officer from also assessing the case.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The petitioner claimed that the procedural requirements under Section 73 of the CGST Act were not followed. The court examined Rule 142 and noted that the proper officer had issued the required forms (GST DRC-01A and GST DRC-01) and provided opportunities for the petitioner to respond. The court found that the procedural mandates were met, and the assessment process was conducted correctly.

4. Legality of a Single Assessment Order for IGST, CGST, and SGST:
The petitioner questioned the validity of a single assessment order covering IGST, CGST, and SGST. The court referred to Section 4 of the IGST Act, which authorizes state tax officers to act under the IGST Act. It was held that there was no legal prohibition against a single assessment order, and the same officer could assess under all three statutes. The court found no inherent prejudice in passing a single order.

5. Factual Determination of Intra-State vs. Inter-State Supply:
The petitioner argued that the transactions were intra-state supplies within Telangana, not subject to Andhra Pradesh's jurisdiction. The court noted that the assessing authority had examined various records, including income tax returns and e-way bills, to determine the tax liability in Andhra Pradesh. The court held that this factual determination could not be reviewed under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of the assessment order and the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. The procedural requirements were deemed to have been followed, and the single assessment order was upheld. The court declined to investigate the factual determination of intra-state vs. inter-state supply, directing the petitioner to pursue the available appellate remedies.

---