HC Disposes GST Appeal as Officer Withdraws non-jurisdictional Section 83 Order

Saket Agarwal Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)

Introduction: In a significant decision, the Bombay High Court has clarified the jurisdictional boundaries concerning Section 83 of the Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act). In the case of Saket Agarwal Vs Union of India, the court found that the State Tax Officer did not have jurisdiction to issue communication under this section.

Filing of the Petition: The petitioner, Saket Agarwal, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The primary relief sought was the quashing of a communication dated 21 April 2023, issued by the State Tax Officer. The communication in question was directed to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd and was issued under Section 83 of the MGST Act.

Question of Jurisdiction: The critical aspect of this case revolved around whether the State Tax Officer had the jurisdiction to issue communication under Section 83 of the MGST Act. The Bombay High Court adjourned the proceedings to allow the Assistant Government Pleader (AGP) to take instructions on this matter.

Withdrawal of Impugned Communication: During the resumed proceedings, the AGP clarified that the State Tax Officer did not possess the jurisdiction to issue such a communication. Accordingly, the impugned communication was withdrawn. The court directed immediate intimation of this withdrawal to be sent to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd.

Impact on Subsequent Proceedings: The court did not express any opinion regarding any future recovery proceedings that the respondents might intend to initiate against the company M/s. Alba Asia Private Ltd and its concerned directors.

Conclusion: The case of Saket Agarwal Vs Union of India serves as an essential precedent for understanding the limits of jurisdiction under Section 83 of the MGST Act. The Bombay High Court’s decision to dispose of the writ petition following the withdrawal of the impugned communication by the State Tax Officer underlines the importance of clearly defined jurisdictional boundaries. The case thus highlights the need for clarity and compliance in exercising powers under tax laws.

The matter was argued by Ld. Counsel Bharat Raichandani

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed primarily praying for a relief that the communication dated 21 April 2023 as issued by the respondent-State Tax Officer (C-804), Nodal Division-I, Mumbai, insofar as the same is issued against the petitioner, be quashed and set aside. The impugned communication is issued to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. It is issued in exercise of the powers under Section 83 of the Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act,2017 (for short ‘the MGST Act’).

2. We had heard the present proceedings on 29 August 2023 and had adjourned the same to enable the learned AGP to take instructions as to whether the State Tax Officer would be the proper officer to exercise jurisdiction under Section 83 of the MGST Act so as to issue the impugned communication.-

3. Today Mr. Takke, learned AGP, on instructions, has fairly stated that the State Tax Officer would not have any jurisdiction to issue such communication, hence, the impugned communication dated 21 April 2023 (Exhibit ‘A’) is being withdrawn by the officer who had issued it. We accept this statement as made by Mr. Takke.

4. As the impugned communication itself is being withdrawn, an intimation of withdrawal of such communication be immediately sent to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. Petitioner shall also inform of the withdrawal of the impugned communication to the CDS (India) Ltd. alongwith a copy of this order.

5. In view of withdrawal of ‘Exhibit A’, further adjudication of the petition is not called for. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the statement as made by Mr. Takke, learned AGP. No costs.

6. Needless to observe that we have not expressed any opinion in regard to any recovery proceedings which the respondents would intend to initiate against the company – M/s. Alba Asia Private Ltd. and its concerned directors.