2024 (1) TMI 501 - HC - GST

Tax Authorities Empowered: CGST Act Supports Jurisdictional Powers and Penalties Through Established Appellate Channels

The SC upheld the jurisdiction of tax authorities under CGST Act, rejecting the petitioner's challenge to an order passed under Section 130. The court ... Maintainability of the writ petition - objection raised on the premise that the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The definition of “Adjudicating Authority” under the State Act, cannot be made applicable to the definition of “Adjudicating Authority” under Section 107 of the CGST Act as the expression Adjudicating Authority under the CGST Act is defined including the Commissioner as the Adjudicating Authority. To interpret the meaning of expression “Adjudicating Authority” found in Section 107 of CGST Act, one has to refer to the definition found in the very same Act and not any other Act, unless such prescription is found in the Act. No provision is pointed out to support the contention. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. No exceptional case is made to entertain the writ petition despite alternative remedy being available. Accordingly writ petition is not entertained. Issues involved: Jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 130 of the CGST Act, maintainability of the writ petition, power of the Authority to impose tax and penalty, appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.Jurisdiction of the Authority under Section 130 of the CGST Act: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 130 of the CGST Act, contending that the conditions precedent for passing the order were not met. The court noted that the officer under the State Goods and Service Tax Act is empowered to exercise power under the IGST Act, rejecting the argument that the officer had no jurisdiction in this regard.Maintainability of the Writ Petition: The respondents raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner claimed that the writ petition was maintainable, citing reasons such as the Authority lacking jurisdiction to pass the order and the appeal not being maintainable against the Commissioner as the Adjudicating Authority under the KGST Act.Power of the Authority to Impose Tax and Penalty: The petitioner argued that the Authority had no power to impose tax or penalty without proper adjudication under Section 74 of the CGST Act. However, the court held that the proper officer under the CGST Act is empowered to impose penalties determined under Section 122 of the CGST Act, including penalties equivalent to tax evaded.Appeal Remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act: The court determined that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It was emphasized that the definition of 'Adjudicating Authority' under the CGST Act includes the Commissioner, and the petitioner's contention that there was no appeal remedy was not accepted. The court concluded that no exceptional circumstances were presented to entertain the writ petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy.