2023 (9) TMI 558 - HC - GST

State Tax Officer's Communication Under MGST Act Section 83 Invalidated After Voluntary Withdrawal of Disputed Notice

HC found that State Tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to issue communication under MGST Act SS 83. Tax Officer voluntarily withdrew the impugned ... Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution - jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 83 of the MGST Act - quashing of communication issued under the MGST Act - withdrawal of adjudicatory communicationJurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 83 of the MGST Act - withdrawal of adjudicatory communication - Impugned communication dated 21 April 2023 issued by the State Tax Officer was withdrawn on the ground that the officer lacked jurisdiction to issue it, and the petition was disposed of in view of that withdrawal. - HELD THAT: - The State conceded through the Advocate General (paragraph 3) that the State Tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to issue the communication under Section 83 of the MGST Act and accordingly the officer who issued the communication has withdrawn Exhibit 'A'. The court accepted the statement of withdrawal. The court directed that an intimation of the withdrawal be sent immediately to the Officer In Charge of Central Depository Services (India) Ltd and that the petitioner shall inform CDS (India) Ltd of the withdrawal and provide a copy of the order (paragraph 4). In view of the withdrawal of Exhibit 'A' further adjudication of the petition was not called for and the writ petition was disposed of on that basis, without costs (paragraph 5). The court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on any recovery proceedings that respondents might institute against the company and its directors (paragraph 6). [Paras 3, 4, 5, 6]Accepted statement of withdrawal of the impugned communication for want of jurisdiction; directed intimation to CDS (India) Ltd and petitioner; writ petition disposed of in view of withdrawal; no opinion on separate recovery proceedings.Final Conclusion: The impugned communication issued by the State Tax Officer was withdrawn on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; the High Court accepted the withdrawal, directed intimation to the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd and the petitioner, and disposed of the writ petition in view of the withdrawal, without expressing any opinion on independent recovery proceedings. Issues involved: Jurisdiction of State Tax Officer u/s 83 of MGST Act, withdrawal of impugned communication.Jurisdiction of State Tax Officer: The petition was filed seeking to quash a communication issued by the respondent-State Tax Officer u/s 83 of the Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act). The High Court adjourned the proceedings to determine if the State Tax Officer had the proper jurisdiction to issue such communication. The learned AGP confirmed that the State Tax Officer did not have the jurisdiction to issue the communication, leading to the withdrawal of the impugned communication.Withdrawal of impugned communication: The State Tax Officer withdrew the communication dated 21 April 2023, which was issued against the petitioner. The High Court accepted the withdrawal and ordered that an intimation of the withdrawal be sent to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. The petitioner was directed to inform CDS (India) Ltd. about the withdrawal along with a copy of the court order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any further adjudication, as per the statement made by the learned AGP. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on potential recovery proceedings against the company and its directors.