TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....passed by the Superintendent, CGST and CX. By the said order, the firm (hereafter "the petitioners") have been found liable to pay a sum of Rs. 72,000/- on account of Service Tax; Rs. 1,440/- on account of E. Cess and Rs. 720 /- on account of S & HSC. By the said order penalties have also been imposed upon the petitioners under Section 77(2) and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (hereafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1994'). 2. The relevant facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that initially a notice to show cause-cum-demand dated October 15, 2019 had been issued to the petitioners by the Superintendent of Central Tax, Range-III thereby alleging that the petitioners had intentionally made wilful misstatement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idently one where allegation of suppression has been made and that being so; the Superintendent could not have decided the petitioners' case at all. 6. It is further submitted that in the present case the Superintendent has invoked the extended period in terms of the first proviso to Section 73(1) of the said Act of 1994 which the Superintendent was not authorised to do. Mr. Khan next submits that the case at hand involves issues relating to taxability of services which again is beyond the jurisdiction of the Superintendents. 7. It is also argued that the order pertains to two periods i.e. financial year 2014-15 and 2016-17 and such clubbing of financial years is not permissible. 8. Mr. Khan has also submitted that the petitioners'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sue of jurisdiction before the Superintendent and having participated before the Superintendent, the petitioners cannot now be heard on the jurisdictional issue raised for the first time before the writ Court. ANALYSIS & DECISION: 12. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 13. It is well settled that mere existence of an alternative remedy before a statutory forum would not deter the writ Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the case presented before the Court satisfies any of the following exceptions viz.- a) violation of principles of natural justice; b) infringement of fundamental right; c) cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....exceeding rupees fifty lakh 3. Additional/Joint Commissioner Above fifty lakh but not exceeding rupees two crore 4. Commissioner Without limit i.e. cases exceeding rupees two crores i) Cases involving taxability, classification, valuation and extended period of limitation shall be kept out of the purview of adjudication by Superintendents. Such cases, upto rupees 10 lakhs, shall also be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner in addition to the cases exceeding rupees 10 lakhs but not exceeding rupees 50 lakh." 16. The provisions of para 2(i) of the said Circular of 2016 extracted hereinabove put it beyond the pale of doubt that the Superintendent would not have any authority to deal with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve thereby submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the said authority, therefore, they should not be permitted to question the jurisdiction now, is not worthy of being countenanced at all. It is well settled that a point of law, more so like the one at hand, which goes to the root of the matter can be taken at any stage of litigation even if the same was not taken earlier. In any case, if the Superintendent, CGST and CX did not have jurisdiction mere participation of the petitioners in the hearings held by the said authority or in the proceedings conducted by such authority would not have conferred jurisdiction on such authority. (See: Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Health Services, Haryana (2013) 10 SCC 136) 20. Since the adjudicating aut....