Case Law Details
Abhijeet Ferrotech Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
In the case of Abhijeet Ferrotech Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors., the Supreme Court of India directed the High Court to address a crucial jurisdictional issue related to a GST assessment order. The appellant, Abhijeet Ferrotech Limited, challenged an assessment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) of Anakapalli Circle, Visakhapatnam, under Section 74(9) of the GST Act. The assessment quantified dues of Rs. 4,03,67,26,846/-, interest of Rs. 1,44,82,10,975/-, and a penalty of Rs. 4,03,67,26,846/-. The appellant argued that the order should have been issued by a higher authority, such as the Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner, instead of the Assistant Commissioner. The High Court initially dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of an alternative remedy being available. However, the Supreme Court set aside this decision, emphasizing that the High Court should have addressed the jurisdictional question as it is central to the controversy. The Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for expeditious adjudication on whether the Assistant Commissioner had the proper authority to issue the assessment order. The appeal was allowed on these terms, with no order as to costs, and any pending applications were disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Leave granted.
The appellant is aggrieved by an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Anakapalli Circle, Visakhapatnam Division, Andhra Pradesh made under Section 74(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules made there under. In the assessment order, the dues of the appellant-assessee has been quantified to be Rs.4,03,67,26,846/- and interest of Rs.1,44,82,10,975/- as also penalty of Rs.4,03,67,26,846/- have been quantified. The appellant questions legality of the order and one of the grounds of challenge is that the Officer who had made the assessment order was not proper Officer and it should have been the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner. The High Court, however, rejected the writ petition on the ground of there being alternative remedy.
What was argued before the High Court was on jurisdictional ground and it is not disputed on behalf of the respondent-State that the question raised was a jurisdictional issue before the High Court.
In such circumstances in our opinion, the High Court ought to have addressed the jurisdictional question and the appellant ought not to have been non-suited on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. The point urged before the High Court goes to the root of the controversy, which gives rise to the present proceeding. In the event the High Court found that the officer who passed the assessment order had the authority to do so, on such finding the writ petition could be dismissed as there being alternative remedy under the statute.
We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to High Court for adjudication on the question of the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to pass the assessment order, which was challenged before the High Court.
We request the High Court to take up this matter expeditiously.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Author Bio
