Case Law Details
RCC Infraventures Ltd Vs Union of India (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
In the case of RCC Infraventures Ltd vs. Union of India, the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition challenging an order from the Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra. The petitioner contested a tax demand of Rs. 45,83,26,728 and interest, along with a recommendation for prosecution under Section 132(1) of the GST Act. The impugned order had directed the petitioner to appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) in Lucknow within 90 days. The respondent argued that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the petitioner should have used the alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner, acknowledging the confusion caused by the composite order affecting multiple states, requested to withdraw the writ petition with the option to pursue the appeal. The court agreed and dismissed the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to appeal before the designated authority in Lucknow.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition being aggrieved by the order dated 27/12/2023 passed by respondent No.3-Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra Commissionerate, Agra (Uttar Pradesh) whereby the tax demand of Rs.45,83,26,728/- and interest has been imposed along with recommendation of prosecution under Section 132(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For brevity, the GST Act’).
2. In the impugned order itself, the petitioner has been disclosed the remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), GST, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) within 90 days and instead of availing the alternative remedy of appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant Writ Petition apart from the remedy of alternative remedy of appeal.
4. After arguing at length, learned counsel for petitioner prays for withdrawal of this Writ Petition with liberty to approach the Appellant Authority.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that respondent No.3-Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra Commissionerate, Agra (Uttar Pradesh) has passed a composite order in respect of GST Return submitted by petitioner in 13 States having different GSTIN and therefore, there was confusion in the mind of petitioner to challenge the impugned order before which appellate authority having territorial jurisdiction in this matter.
6. The petitioner/company is having registered office at Agra and respondent No.3-Additional Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Agra Commissionerate, Agra (Uttar Pradesh) has passed the impugned order. Therefore, appeal would lie to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), GST, 3/194, Vishal Khand-3, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) as advised in the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.
Author Bio
