Indian Bank Vs Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court considered Indian Bank’s challenge to rejection of its GST waiver application concerning Maharashtra operations. A combined order under Section 73 was issued on 21.03.2023 for the petitioner’s Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra operations. The petitioner’s Maharashtra appeal was rejected on 31.01.2024 on jurisdictional grounds. It subsequently filed Form GST SPL-02 under Section 128A. The waiver was partly allowed for Tamil Nadu but rejected for Maharashtra.
The petitioner contended that the proper officer who issued the Section 73 order could consider the waiver application and that neither Section 128A nor Rule 164 deprived that officer of jurisdiction. Revenue relied on CBIC Circular No.238/32/2024-GST, stating that the proper officer for Form GST SPL-02 was the officer responsible for recovery under Section 79.
The Court noted that the application fell under Section 128A(1)(b) and had been filed on 26.06.2025 within the applicable due date, with the tax liability discharged before 31.03.2025. Although the Court accepted that the proper officer under Rule 164 and Circular No.238 is the officer referred to in Section 79, it found that neither Section 79 nor Chapter XVIII specified the basis for identifying that officer. Considering the combined Section 73 order covering both locations and the single-application framework under Rule 164, the Court held there was no statutory basis to decline jurisdiction over the Maharashtra waiver claim. The rejection was partly set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order in original under Section 73 of applicable GST enactments was issued on 21.03.2023 both in respect of the petitioner’s operations in Tamil Nadu and the State of Maharashtra. As regards the operations in Maharashtra, the petitioner lodged an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals, Mumbai and such appeal was rejected on 31.01.2024 on the ground that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction and that the petitioner has to approach the authority in Chennai. In these circumstances, the petitioner lodged an application for waiver under Section 128A by filing an application in Form GST SPL-02. Said application was allowed partly in respect of the Chennai operations, but rejected in respect of the Maharashtra operations. To the extent of rejection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for waiver was presented before the proper officer who issued the order under Section 73 and that the requirements for waiver under Section 128A are satisfied. He also submits that there is nothing in Section 128A or in Rule 164 which denuded such officer of the authority to consider the waiver application.
3. Mr. K.S.Ramasamy, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondent. In response, he relies on Circular No.238/32/2024-GST of the CBIC (Circular No.238) to contend that said circular provides that the proper officer to consider an application filed in Form GST SPL-02 is the proper officer for recovery under Section 79.
4. The petitioner’s waiver application falls within the scope of Section 128A(1)(b). The record shows that tax liability was discharged prior to the notified date of 31.03.2025. Upon being presented originally on 26.06.2025, which is within the due date for filing such application, the application was processed and waiver was granted only in respect of the operations in Tamil Nadu.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the ground for rejection is that the proper officer is not competent to waive interest and penalty in respect of operations in In this regard, relying on Circular No.238, learned senior standing counsel contended that the proper officer in relation to an application in Form GST SPL-02 is the proper officer referred to in Section 79. To this extent, he is correct. Both Explanation (b) to Rule 164 and Circular No.238 support this contention. This, however, leads to the question as to who is the proper officer for purposes of Section 79.
6. Neither Section 79 nor the rules framed thereunder (Chapter XVIII) specify the basis to identify the proper officer. Both Sections 79 and Section 128A, nonetheless, use the expression ‘the proper officer’, thereby indicating that it is a specific person. Significantly, Rule 164 envisages a single application in Form GST SPL-01 or SPL-02, and not multiple applications. Section 79 also provides for availing of the services of a specified officer for recovery. Considering all these aspects, having issued the combined order under Section 73 in respect of both Chennai and Maharashtra locations, there is no statutory basis for the proper officer to decline to exercise jurisdiction in respect of waiver with regard to Maharashtra. Therefore, the impugned order is partly set aside only insofar as the rejection of the waiver claim pertaining to Maharashtra is concerned and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued on the waiver application insofar as Maharashtra is concerned.
7. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
