9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 879 - HC - GSTJurisdiction - impugned Show-Cause Notices issued by two different authorities in respect of the same subject matter - Section 112(3) of JGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Department has not invoked any higher Forum against the Appellate order and that way accepted the order in Appeal. There is no demand pending in respect thereof. As such, the impugned Show-Cause Notices issued by two different authorities in respect of the same subject matter are without jurisdiction and in teeth of the provisions of Section 112(3) of JGST Act, 2017. Learned counsel for the State prays for and is allowed three weeks time to obtain instruction and file counter affidavit. One week time thereafter is allowed to the petitioner to file reply, if so advised - List the case on 29. 03. 2023.
Issues: Jurisdictional challenge regarding issuance of show-cause notices by two different authorities for the same subject matter.
The judgment delivered by the High Court dealt with a jurisdictional challenge raised by the petitioner regarding the issuance of two show-cause notices by different authorities for the same subject matter. The petitioner contended that the notices, issued under Section 73 of the JGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2019-March 2020, were improper as there had already been an adjudication by the Appellate Authority against a previous order. The petitioner argued that since the Department had not appealed against the Appellate order, it had accepted the decision, and there was no pending demand. The petitioner claimed that the issuance of the impugned notices by two authorities for the same subject matter was without jurisdiction and contrary to Section 112(3) of the JGST Act, 2017. The State's counsel requested and was granted three weeks to obtain instructions and file a counter affidavit. Subsequently, the petitioner was given one week to file a reply if necessary. Meanwhile, the court ordered a stay on further proceedings related to the show-cause notices issued by the two authorities until the matter was resolved. The case was listed for the next hearing on 29th March 2023. The court's decision to stay the proceedings indicated a cautious approach to prevent any potential harm or prejudice to the petitioner during the ongoing legal process. The timeline provided for the submission of counter affidavits and replies ensured a fair opportunity for both parties to present their arguments effectively before the court. The listing of the case for a future date demonstrated the court's commitment to addressing the jurisdictional challenge thoroughly and reaching a just resolution based on the legal arguments presented.
|
