Case Law Details
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 Accordingly, the impugned communication was withdrawn.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.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
