Kay Arr Engineering Services Vs Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court considered a writ petition challenging Order-in-Original No. 1/2024 dated 16.01.2025, whereby the proposal contained in Show Cause Notice No. 38/2024 GST dated 26.06.2024, issued by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), was confirmed. The petitioner contended that the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 was inapplicable because the dispute arose from a bona fide classification of maintenance charges for wind-operated electricity generators under Sl. No. 234 of Notification No. 1/2017-Central Tax (Rate), whereas the Revenue alleged that the services were classifiable under Sl. No. 135 of the Fourth Schedule attracting a higher rate of tax. The petitioner also relied on an earlier High Court decision concerning composite assessment orders covering multiple assessment years.
The principal challenge, however, related to jurisdiction. The petitioner relied upon Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax, as amended by Notification No. 02/2022 dated 11.03.2022 and Notification No. 27/2024 dated 25.11.2024, and argued that where notices are issued by the DGGI, only an officer of the rank of Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner is competent to pass the adjudication order. Since the impugned order had been passed by an Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, it was contended that the order lacked jurisdiction.
