9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 558 - HC - GSTWithdrawal of the impugned communication - Jurisdiction - attachment of properties - State Tax Officer would be the proper officer to exercise jurisdiction under Section 83 of the MGST Act so as to issue the impugned communication or not - HELD THAT - As the impugned communication itself is being withdrawn, an intimation of withdrawal of such communication be immediately sent to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. Petitioner shall also inform of the withdrawal of the impugned communication to the CDS (India) Ltd. alongwith a copy of this order. In view of withdrawal of Exhibit A , further adjudication of the petition is not called for. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in view of the statement as made by Mr.Takke, learned AGP.
Issues involved: Jurisdiction of State Tax Officer u/s 83 of MGST Act, withdrawal of impugned communication.
Jurisdiction of State Tax Officer: The petition was filed seeking to quash a communication issued by the respondent-State Tax Officer u/s 83 of the Maharashtra State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act). The High Court adjourned the proceedings to determine if the State Tax Officer had the proper jurisdiction to issue such communication. The learned AGP confirmed that the State Tax Officer did not have the jurisdiction to issue the communication, leading to the withdrawal of the impugned communication. Withdrawal of impugned communication: The State Tax Officer withdrew the communication dated 21 April 2023, which was issued against the petitioner. The High Court accepted the withdrawal and ordered that an intimation of the withdrawal be sent to the Officer-In-Charge of the Central Depository Services (India) Ltd. The petitioner was directed to inform CDS (India) Ltd. about the withdrawal along with a copy of the court order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any further adjudication, as per the statement made by the learned AGP. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on potential recovery proceedings against the company and its directors.
|
