Pecuniary jurisdiction objection to CGST intimation fails once a competent authority issues a fresh intimation under Section 74(5).

A jurisdiction objection to an intimation under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act did not survive once a Joint Commissioner issued a fresh intimation. The earlier challenge was based on the alleged lack of pecuniary jurisdiction in the officer who first issued the communication, but the later intimation by a competent authority displaced that objection. The Court noted that objections had also been filed to the subsequent intimation and that it remained open to the proper officer to deal with the matter in accordance with law. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.

---

---

Issues: Whether the jurisdiction objection to the intimation issued under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 survived after the Joint Commissioner issued a fresh intimation, and whether the writ petition was liable to be disposed of with liberty for the proper officer to proceed in accordance with law.

Analysis: The earlier objection was founded on the fact that the intimation had been issued by an officer said to be lacking pecuniary jurisdiction. A subsequent intimation was, however, issued by the Joint Commissioner under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In that view, the jurisdictional challenge to the earlier communication ceased to survive. The petitioner had also filed objections to the later intimation, and the Court held that it was open to the proper officer to consider the matter in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction objection was no longer available, and the writ petition was disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a competent authority issues an intimation under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, an objection based on the pecuniary jurisdiction of the earlier issuing officer does not survive.

---