Land revenue recovery of GST arrears upheld, with coercive steps and summons sustained under the statutory recovery scheme.

GST arrears certified for recovery as arrears of land revenue may be enforced through the land-revenue machinery, and a Revenue Officer empowered under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act may issue a writ of demand and proceed with coercive recovery measures. The High Court found no jurisdictional defect in the Special Tehsildar Recoveries acting under the Collectorate, and rejected the challenge. It also upheld the non-bailable warrant and later summons, holding that they were issued within the statutory recovery process and showed no legal infirmity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Tehsildar Recoveries had jurisdiction to proceed with recovery of GST arrears by issuing writ of demand and consequential coercive process under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act; (ii) Whether the non-bailable warrant and subsequent summons issued against the petitioner were without authority and liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Tehsildar Recoveries had jurisdiction to proceed with recovery of GST arrears by issuing writ of demand and consequential coercive process under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act.

Analysis: Recovery was initiated after the proper officer under the GST regime elected the mode under Section 79(1)(e) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, namely recovery through the Collector as arrears of land revenue. The certificate in the prescribed form was forwarded to the District Collector, who could channel the matter through the revenue hierarchy under Rule 155 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Under Sections 61, 62 and 63 of the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act, 1996, a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar may issue a writ of demand and, upon default, proceed with arrest and other recovery measures. On that framework, the Special Tehsildar Recoveries, acting under the Collectorate, could not be said to lack jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the jurisdiction of the Special Tehsildar Recoveries failed and was rejected against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the non-bailable warrant and subsequent summons issued against the petitioner were without authority and liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The record showed that the recovery proceedings were pursued after the arrears were certified and referred for land-revenue recovery. The Court found no legal infirmity in the use of coercive steps contemplated by the Land Revenue Act for enforcement of such arrears. The summons issued later also indicated that the proceedings were continuing within the statutory recovery mechanism, and the petitioner did not establish any basis to invalidate those steps.

Conclusion: The warrant and summons were upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The statutory recovery machinery under the GST framework read with the Jammu & Kashmir Land Revenue Act was held to be validly invoked, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where GST arrears are certified for recovery as land revenue under the statutory scheme, the revenue authority empowered under the land-revenue law may proceed with demand and coercive recovery measures in accordance with that scheme, and such action is not vitiated absent a demonstrated jurisdictional defect.

---