Introduction: In a recent case, Aasanvish Technology (P.) Ltd. v. Director General of GST Intelligence, the Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of jurisdiction in cases involving multiple show-cause notices (SCNs). The court’s ruling, dated November 24, 2023, provides insights into the authority responsible for adjudicating matters when faced with several notices and varying demands.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aasanvish technology (P.) Ltd v. Director General of GST Intelligence [Writ Petition No. (C) 15221 of 2023 dated November 24, 2023] held that the matter for adjudication can be placed before an officer who exercises jurisdiction in respect of the Noticees, where multiple notices have been issued, in whose case the maximum demand has been raised. Thus, disposed of the writ petition.
Facts:
Aasanvish Technology (P.) Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) was engaged in providing services of online gaming. They were issued multiple SCN (“Impugned SCN”) dated September 15, 2023. The liability was charged for the period when the Petitioner was not active. The Petitioner did not have any wherewithal to provide any such service.
The Impugned SCN was issued by the Additional Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit. The Petitioner contended that the Impugned SCN was to be adjudicated by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane and the Impugned SCN related to the Petitioner’s place of business at Hyderabad, Telangana with separate registration.
The Director General of GST Intelligence (“the Respondent”) referred Para 7.1 of Circular dated September 2, 2018, amended by Circular dated March 12, 2022, the matter for adjudication can be placed before an officer, who exercises jurisdiction in respect of the noticee (where multiple notices have been issued), in whose case the maximum demand has been raised. He stated that in the present case, multiple notices have been issued and the maximum demand is proposed to be raised under the notice issued to Belz Tech Private Limited. Therefore, the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the said notice.
Hence, aggrieved by the Impugned Notice the present writ was filed by the Petitioner.
Issue:
Whether the matter for adjudication can be referred to the officer with jurisdiction, where multiple notices are involved, and the maximum demand has been raised?
Held:
The Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 15221 of 2023 held as under:
- Held that, Para 7.1 of Circular dated September 2, 2018, amended by Circular dated March 12, 2022, would be applicable where the matter for adjudication can be placed before an officer, who exercises jurisdiction where maximum demand has been raised. Therefore, the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the said notice.
- Held that, the Petitioner’s contention that the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Central Tax, Thane would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the impugned SCN is, thus, unmerited. The Commissionerate issuing the Impugned SCN to the Petitioner with the highest demand holds jurisdiction to adjudicate all connected SCN.
- Directed that, the concerned officer is required to consider all contentions and defenses raised by the Petitioner. And, if he does not accept any of them, he is required to pass a speaking order. Hence, the petition was disposed of.
Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s decision provides clarity on the jurisdictional aspect of adjudicating multiple SCNs with varying demands. The ruling underscores the importance of considering the commissionerate issuing the SCN with the highest demand as the competent authority for adjudication. This case sets a precedent for similar situations, ensuring a streamlined approach to jurisdiction in complex matters involving multiple notices.
****
Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
