Jurisdiction of Superintendent over GST extended limitation adjudication challenged and set aside for want of jurisdiction.

The writ challenges the territorial and subject-matter competence of the Superintendent to adjudicate notices invoking the extended period of limitation for taxability, classification and valuation. The HC applied established exceptions permitting relief under Article 226 despite an alternative statutory remedy and found the Superintendent acted without jurisdiction in taking up matters involving extended limitation and core tax determinations; an absence of jurisdiction renders the impugned order a nullity. Participation by the taxpayer did not cure the defect. Consequently the impugned adjudication order was set aside on jurisdictional grounds and the matter was not remitted for appellate proceeding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Superintendent, CGST and CX had jurisdiction to adjudicate a show-cause notice invoking the extended period under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: Paragraph 2(i) of the Circular dated September 29, 2016 categorically excludes cases involving taxability, classification, valuation and extended period of limitation from adjudication by Superintendents even where the monetary demand is within Rs.10,00,000. The notice and the impugned order expressly invoke the proviso to Section 73(1) (extended period of limitation). The exclusion in the said Circular therefore places matters invoking the extended period outside the competence of a Superintendent and within the competence of a Deputy/Assistant Commissioner. Participation by a party in proceedings before an authority that lacks jurisdiction does not confer jurisdiction on that authority.

Conclusion: The order dated October 29, 2024 passed by the Superintendent, CGST and CX is a nullity for want of jurisdiction and is set aside; decision is in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a delegated administrative instruction excludes specified categories of tax matters (including invocation of the extended period of limitation) from the competence of a particular adjudicating rank, any order on such excluded matters issued by that rank is void for want of jurisdiction.

---