2022 (6) TMI 1474 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction of initiation of proceeding in question - appropriate officer under the State GST Act - jurisdiction of the respondent DRI officer - HELD THAT - Prima facie the petitioner has been able to make out a case for an interim order and considering this aspect there will be conditional stay of the impugned adjudication order dated 4th March, 2022 and subject to deposit of 10% of the demand in question by the petitioner within ten days from date and if such payment is made by the petitioner within the time stipulated herein, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the demand in question. List this matter for final hearing after ten weeks.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to jurisdiction under State GST Act; Maintainability of writ petition; Interpretation of provisions of law and notifications.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and Enforcement under Section 74(9) of the State GST Act, alleging lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings under the State GST Act was without jurisdiction, questioning the officer's authority under the Act. The respondents, represented by Mr. Ghosh, defended the jurisdiction of the DRI officer, citing Section 4, Section 5 of the State GST Act, and notifications from March 2019. On the other hand, Mr. Khan, representing the petitioner, relied on a notification from February 2019. Mr. Ghosh also raised the issue of the maintainability of the writ petition, claiming the availability of an alternative remedy through an appellate forum. However, it was argued that the principle of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, especially in cases involving jurisdiction, natural justice, or constitutional validity of a law provision. The court found that the petitioner had prima facie established a case regarding the jurisdiction of the officer and the interpretation of various legal provisions and notifications. Therefore, the court decided to entertain the writ petition on its merits rather than dismissing it on the grounds of alternative remedies.

The court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition within four weeks, with the petitioner given two weeks to file a reply, if necessary. The matter was scheduled for a final hearing after ten weeks. Additionally, the court granted a conditional stay on the impugned adjudication order dated 4th March 2022. The petitioner was required to deposit 10% of the demand within ten days to avoid coercive action for recovery. If the payment was made within the stipulated time, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner.