<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (3) TMI 1370 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420332</link>
    <description>Allahabad HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice and assessment order issued by a State GST officer when the taxpayer was assigned to a Central GST officer. The court held that while the case was assigned to Central officer for administrative convenience, the State officer had inherent territorial jurisdiction. Since the taxpayer participated in proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections and submitted to the State officer&#039;s jurisdiction, they were estopped from challenging it later. The court distinguished between inherent lack of jurisdiction and error of jurisdiction, finding this was the latter with contributory negligence by the taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2025 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=674531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1370 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420332</link>
      <description>Allahabad HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice and assessment order issued by a State GST officer when the taxpayer was assigned to a Central GST officer. The court held that while the case was assigned to Central officer for administrative convenience, the State officer had inherent territorial jurisdiction. Since the taxpayer participated in proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections and submitted to the State officer&#039;s jurisdiction, they were estopped from challenging it later. The court distinguished between inherent lack of jurisdiction and error of jurisdiction, finding this was the latter with contributory negligence by the taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>