D. Justin Kumar Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST and C.Excise
Date: March 2, 2025
Subject Matter
Writ petition is not maintainable because the alternate remedy of GST appeal is not exercised.
Summary
The Madras High Court heard a writ petition filed by D. Justin Kumar contesting an order from the CGST Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner argued that the State GST officers in Kuzhithurai had already made determinations on tax issues for the periods 2018 to 2021. Citing Section 6(2)(b) of the Central GST Act, he claimed that the CGST authority's subsequent order on the same matter constituted illegal double taxation and should be quashed. The Standing Counsel for the respondent noted that the petitioner had the option to appeal to the Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals) as per Section 107 but chose to go directly to the High Court. The court decided to dismiss the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal within two weeks, ensuring it would be considered even beyond the usual limitation period, with a directive to resolve the appeal in two months. The court did not impose any costs and closed the associated miscellaneous petitions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition is filed challenging the Order-in-Original No. 32/AC/GST/2024, dated 31.05.2024.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the State GST Officers, Kuzhithurai @ Kattathurai, have already adjudicated the cases on the same subject for the tax periods 2018-2019, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021. Asper Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the jurisdictional State GST officers have already issued orders demanding tax on the same issue for the same period, any subsequent order passed by the respondent on the same subject and for the same period is contrary to the legislative mandate. Such an action amounts to double taxation and therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition, is liable to be set aside.
3. R. Gowrishankar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017. However, without invoking the appeal remedy, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court.
4. Recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner is having an appeal remedy before the Joint Commissioner of CGST (Appeals), Madurai, under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, this writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and raise all the grounds raised in this writ petition in the appeal. In the event, if any appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be entertained by the appellate authority without insisting on the limitation and disposed of in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.