Md Mukimuddin V. Union of India and Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Finance and Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods and Service Tax and Joint Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Imphal Range-I and Superintendent Central Goods and Service Tax, Imphal Range-I

WP(C)/5180/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Md Mukimuddin, the petitioner, who challenged an appellate order by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Guwahati, which rejected his appeal as barred by limitation. The petitioner argued that due to an internet ban, he was unable to file his appeal in Imphal, leading him to approach the appellate authority in Guwahati. The respondents contended that the appropriate jurisdiction for this writ petition was the High Court of Manipur, not Gauhati. The court, considering the jurisdictional argument and relevant precedents, allowed the withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court of Manipur.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693369 (HC-ASSAM NAGALAND MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Income Tax- I Vs. M/s Balak Capital Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Central Goods and Service Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DY S G I
• Assessee Lawyers: R S MISHRA
• Keywords: Barred by limitation; Internet ban; Jurisdiction; Withdrawal of writ petition
• Section: 22-03-2023

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010198732023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5180/2023 MD MUKIMUDDIN SON OF LATE MD FAJUR RAHAMAN RESIDENT OF SORA AANG LEIKAI, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT KAKCHING, MANIPUR, PIN. 795103 VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI- 781001 ASSAM 3:THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM 4:THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX IMPHAL RANGE-I ZONE-8 IMPHAL EAST THOUBAL 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX IMPHAL RANGE-I Page No.# 2/3 ZONE-8 IMPHAL EAST THOUBA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 18-09-2023 Heard Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, GST authorities as well as Ms. K. Phukan, learned CGC appearing for the official respondents. Assailing the order dated 22-03-2023 passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Addl. Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Central Excise & Customs, Guwahati rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, the instant writ petition has been filed. The original order dated 22-03-2023 in this case was passed by the Superintendent, Zone-8, Imphal East, Thoubal & Kakching District and the State of Manipur. According to the petitioner, due to the ban imposed on internet, he could not prefer the appeal before the authorities at Imphal, as a result of which, the petitioner was compelled to approach the appellate authority at Guwahati. Hence, this writ petition has been filed before this High Court. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, GST authorities, on the other hand, Page No.# 3/3 submits that since the original order was passed by the Superintendent at Imphal, it is only the High Court of Judicature at Manipur that would have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the appellate order. In support of his above argument, Mr. Keyal has produced a copy of the order passed in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax- I Vs. M/s Balak Capital Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 982 wherein the Supreme Court has quoted with approval, the law laid down in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chandigarh Vs. ABC Papers Ltd. reported in (2002) 9 SCC 1, wherein it was held that appeal against the decision of the ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the assessing officer who had passed the assessment order is situated. Although the aforesaid decision was rendered in the context of Section 260A of the I.T. Act, yet I am of the prima facie opinion that the ratio laid down in the said decision will be applicable in the present case as well. At this stage, Mr. Mishra seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the High Court of Judicature at Manipur. Prayer is allowed. On the request of learned counsel for the writ petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed of on withdrawal with liberty to approach the jurisdictional High Court. JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant "