# M/S R.M.G. Fabricators Revisionist v. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 974
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-03-31
- **Case number:** Sale/Trade Tax Revision No. 123 of 2017
- **Bench:** Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-r-m-g-fabricators-revisionist-v-the-commissioner-of-commercial-tax-u-p-anr-48384
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Tax Law - Jurisdiction - Permission for
Reassessment - U.P. VAT Act,2008 -
Sections 29, 31 & 56(1) - The power of the
Commissioner is not in question in the present
revision as per S. 56(1) of the Act. The issue
involved is only confined to the initiation
of the reassessment proceedings by the
assessing authority seeking permission of
the
Commissioner
to
reassess
the
revisionist u/s 56(1) of the Act. If this
procedure is permitted, then S. 29 of the Act
provides
for
reassessment
will
become
redundant.
Once
there
is
a
specific
provision empowering authorities to act
as per the procedure, the same must be
adhered to. Any deviation from such
procedure will cause havoc in the State.
(Para 20)

B. Section 56 of the VAT Act would reveal
that the section has wide power, but
seeking of permission by the assessing
authority for making reassessment of the
dealer is not conferred under the said
provision.
For
reassessment,
different
provision has been prescribed under the VAT
Act, i.e., S.29 and its sub-sections. (Para 22)

It is not the case of the Department that section
has wrongly been quoted, but specifically the
Joint Commissioner (Executive), in the opening
paragraph of the order u/s 56(1) of the VAT Act
while granting permission, has mentioned the
fact that the permission for reassessment is
sought by the assessing authority and the
permission has wrongly been granted by the
Joint Commissioner (Executive). The Joint
Commissioner (Executive) has exceeded in his
jurisdiction, which has been endorsed by the
Tribunal without looking into the provisions of
the Act, which is very clear. In the opinion of
this Court, the Tribunal should have allowed the
dealer's appeal. (Para 22)

Revision is allowed with cost of Rs.5000/-
. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

974 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the taxpayer with material evidence thereof,
may examine the matter afresh and on
being satisfied that the input tax credit,
initially considered to be fraudulently availed
or ineligible as per conditions of sub-rule (1)
of rule 86A, is no more ineligible or wrongly
availed, either partially or fully, may allow
the use of the credit' so disallowed/restricted,
up to the extent of eligibility, as per powers
granted under sub-rule (2) of rule 86A.
Reasons for allowing the debit of electronic
credit ledger, which had been earlier
disallowed, shall be duly recorded on file in
writing, before allowing such debit of
electronic credit ledger.

3.4.1 The restriction imposed as per
sub-rule (1) of rule 86A shall cease to have
effect after the expiration of a period of one
year from the date of imposing such
restriction. In other words, upon expiration
of one year from the date of restriction, the
registered person would be able to debit
input tax credit so disallowed, subject to
any other action that may be taken against
the registered person.

3.4.2 As the restriction on debit of
electronic credit ledger under sub-rule (1)
of rule 86A is resorted to protect the
interests of the revenue and the said action
also has bearing on the working capital of
the registered person, it should be
endeavored that in all such cases' the
investigation
and
adjudication
are
completed at the earliest, well within the
period of restriction, so that the due
liability arising out of the same can be
recovered from the said taxable person and
the purpose of disallowing debit from
electronic credit ledger is achieved.

4. Difficulty, if any, in implementation
of the above guidelines may please be
brought to the notice of the Undersigned."

4. From perusal of Rule 86 A(2) of the
C.G. & S.T./U.P. G. & S.T. Rules, 2017, and
paragraph 3.4 of the aforequoted guidelines
of the Commercial Tax we are of the view
that the petitioners should first approach the
authorised Officer raising objections against
the blocking of the input tax credit and the
said authority would be under an obligation
to decide the objection within a time bound
period.

5. In view of the aforesaid, we disposed
off all these writ petitions giving liberty to the
petitioners to submit objections before the
Commissioner or the authorisied Officer, as
the case may be, under Rule 86 A(2) of the
C.G.S.T. /U.P.G.S.T. Rules, 2017, within two
weeks from today alongwith certified copy of
this order and in the event objections are
submitted by the petitioners within the
stipulated period, the same shall be decided
by the concerned Authority Officer in
accordance with law, by a speaking and
reasoned order, within next three weeks, after
affording reasonable opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners.

6. It is made clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
----------
(2022)04ILR A974
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Sale/Trade Tax Revision No. 123 of 2017

M/S R.M.G. Fabricators ...Revisionist
Versus
The Commissioner of Commercial Tax,
U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Revisionist:
4 All. M/S R.M.G. Fabricators Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. & Anr.
975
Sri Kedar Nath Kumar, Sri Vishnu Kesarwani

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Tax Law - Jurisdiction - Permission for
Reassessment - U.P. VAT Act,2008 -
Sections 29, 31 & 56(1) - The power of the
Commissioner is not in question in the present
revision as per S. 56(1) of the Act. The issue
involved is only confined to the initiation
of the reassessment proceedings by the
assessing authority seeking permission of
the
Commissioner
to
reassess
the
revisionist u/s 56(1) of the Act. If this
procedure is permitted, then S. 29 of the Act
provides
for
reassessment
will
become
redundant.
Once
there
is
a
specific
provision empowering authorities to act
as per the procedure, the same must be
adhered to. Any deviation from such
procedure will cause havoc in the State.
(Para 20)

B. Section 56 of the VAT Act would reveal
that the section has wide power, but
seeking of permission by the assessing
authority for making reassessment of the
dealer is not conferred under the said
provision.
For
reassessment,
different
provision has been prescribed under the VAT
Act, i.e., S.29 and its sub-sections. (Para 22)

It is not the case of the Department that section
has wrongly been quoted, but specifically the
Joint Commissioner (Executive), in the opening
paragraph of the order u/s 56(1) of the VAT Act
while granting permission, has mentioned the
fact that the permission for reassessment is
sought by the assessing authority and the
permission has wrongly been granted by the
Joint Commissioner (Executive). The Joint
Commissioner (Executive) has exceeded in his
jurisdiction, which has been endorsed by the
Tribunal without looking into the provisions of
the Act, which is very clear. In the opinion of
this Court, the Tribunal should have allowed the
dealer's appeal. (Para 22)

Revision is allowed with cost of Rs.5000/-
. (E-4)

Precedent followed:
1. M/s A.K. Corporation & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 1994 UPTC 75 (Para 21)

Precedent distinguished:

1. M/s Samrat Carpet Vs CTT, 1999 UPTC 1023
(Para 3)

Present revision challenges the judgement
and order dated 17.11.2016, passed by
the Commercial Tax Tribunal, Bench - 2,
Kanpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Shri Vishnu Kesarwani,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri
A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for
the opposite party.

2. The present revision has been filed
against the judgement & order dated
17.11.2016 passed by the Commercial Tax
Tribunal, Bench - 2, Kanpur in Second
Appeal No. 136 of 2016 for the assessment
year 2009-10 arising out of the proceedings
initiated under section 56(1) of the U.P.
VAT Act, in which following questions of
law have been framed:-

"(i) Whether in view of the facts &
circumstances, the Tribunal's act and
decision
holding
the
learned
Joint
Commissioner'
Order
legal
was
in
accordance with Act.

(iv) Whether section 56(1) of the Act
permits the Assessing Officer to refer the
case to the Commissioner or Joint
Commissioner
for
assessment/reassessment?"

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the proceedings initiated under
section 56(1) of the VAT Act against the
applicant are bad and without authority of
law, as the assessing authority has sought
permission for reassessment on various
976 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
grounds under section 56(1) of the VAT
Act. On issuance of notice, the dealer has
specifically objected for initiation of
proceedings under section 56(1) of the
VAT Act. Copy of reply to the notice has
been annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the
revision. He submits that while passing the
order
dated
30.09.2016,
the
Joint
Commissioner (Executive), Kanpur has
specifically
notices
on
the
opening
paragraph of its order (Annexure No. 7 to
the revision), but failed to decide the core
issue as to whether the permission can be
granted to the assessing authority for
reassessment under section 56(1) of the
Act. On appeal before the Tribunal, again
specific ground no. 11 was taken raising
the issue of initiation of jurisdiction by the
Commissioner
granting
permission
to
reassess the assessee. The Tribunal, while
deciding the issue has referred to the
judgement of this Court in M/s Samrat
Carpet Vs. CTT reported in 1999 UPTC
1023 and held that the Commissioner had
power
to
grant
permission
for
reassessment, which is bad. He prays for
allowing the revision.

4. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel
supports
the
initiation
of
proceedings and the order passed by the
authorities below. He submits that the
Commissioner has a power under section
56(1) of the VAT Act to revise the order of
the assessing authority and therefore, the
order is justified. He prays for dismissal of
the revision.

5. The Court has perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the proceedings have
been initiated under section 56(1) of the
VAT Act seeking permission by the
assessing authority to reassess the dealer on
certain points. In pursuance thereof, notice
was issued. In reply to the said notice, an
objection was raised by the dealer objecting
for initiation of proceedings and the
competence of the authority for granting
such permission under section 56(1) of the
VAT Act. Copy of the reply has been
annexed as Annexure No. 6 to the revision.
Relevant portion is at page 76, which is
quoted below:-

"6- यि सक प्रश्नगत नोसिस के पैरा-2 में कर
सनधाारक असधकाऱी द्वारा कर सनधाारण आदेश
एवं पुनः कर सनधाारण आदेश क़ी अनुमसत मांगे
जाने का उल्लेि सकया गया िै। असधसनयम क़ी
धारा- 56(1) से स्पष्ट िै सक कसमश्नर या कसमश्नर
द्वारा प्रासधकृत असधकाऱी को धारा- 56(1) के
अन्तगात कर सनधाारण आदेश के पुनऱीक्षण क़ी
शण्डक्त कुछ शतो के अध़ीन प्राि िै। प्रश्नगत
नोसिस में अंसकत िाषा से स्पष्ट िै सक कर
सनधाारण आदेश का पुनऱीक्षण मानऩीय कसमश्नर
या उसके द्वारा प्रासधकृत असधकाऱी द्वारा नि़ीं
सकया गया िै, बण्डल्क कर सनधाारण असधकाऱी
द्वारा असधसनयम क़ी धारा-56(2) में कर सनधाारण
आदेश को संशोसधत/पुनः कर सनधाारण करने क़ी
अनुमसत मांग़ी गई। अतः प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में
धारा- 56(2) के अन्तगात कृत कायावाि़ी
आरम्भतः अवैध एवं शून्य िै।"

7. While granting permission under
section 56(1) of the VAT Act, the Joint
Commissioner (Executive), in its order
dated 30.09.2016, has stated as under:-

"व्यापाऱी का वषा 2009-10 प्रान्त़ीय वाद में
अससस्ट्ेंि कसमश्नगर, वासणिकर, िि-9,
कानपुर द्वारा धारा-56 के अन्तगात पुनः कर
सनधाारण क़ी कायावाि़ी के सम्बन्ध में अनुमसत
मांग़ी गय़ी िै।"

But has failed to discuss the issue
raised by the dealer for granting permission
4 All. M/S R.M.G. Fabricators Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. & Anr.
977
for reassessment under section 56(1) of the
VAT Act.

8. The record further reveals that
before the Tribunal, again the dealer raised
the competence of initiation of proceedings
against it by raising specific ground no. 11,
copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.
8 to the writ petition, which is quoted
below:-

"11- क्योंसक प्रश्नगत नोसिस/आदेश में कर
सनधाारक असधकाऱी द्वारा कर सनधाारण आदेश
एवं पुनः कर सनधाारण आदेश क़ी अनुमसत मांगे
जाने का उल्लेि सकया गया िै। असधसनयम क़ी
धारा- 56(1) से स्पष्ट िै सक कसमश्नर या कसमश्नर
द्वारा प्रासधकृत असधकाऱी को धारा- 56(1) के
अन्तगात कर सनधाारण आदेश के पुनऱीक्षण क़ी
शण्डक्त कुछ शतो के अध़ीन प्राि िै। प्रश्नगत
नोसिस/आदेश में अंसकत िाषा से स्पष्ट िै सक
कर सनधाारण आदेश का पुनऱीक्षण मानऩीय
कसमश्नर या उसके द्वारा प्रासधकृत असधकाऱी
द्वारा ि़ी सकया गया िै, सकन्तु प्रश्नगत मामलें में
कर सनधाारण असधकाऱी द्वारा असधसनयम क़ी
धारा-56(2) में कर सनधाारण आदेश को
संशोसधत/पुनः कर सनधाारण करने क़ी अनुमसत
मांग़ी गई। अतः प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में धारा- 56(1)
के अन्तगात कृत कायावाि़ी आरम्भतः अवैध एवं
शून्य िै।"

9. The Tribunal, while rejecting the
contention of the dealer, relying upon the
judgement of this Court in M/s Samrat
Carpet Vs. CTT reported in 1999 UPTC
1023, had rejected the contention, which is
quoted below:-

" सवद्वान असधवक्ता द्वारा सबन्दु ि़ी उठाया
गया िै सक कर सनधाारण आदेश का पुनऱीक्षण
कसमश्नर या उनके द्वारा प्रासधकृत असधकाऱी द्वारा
ि़ी सकया जा सकता िै, सकन्तु प्रश्नगत आदेश
द्वारा मामले में कर सनधाारण असधकाऱी को कर
सनधाारण/पुनः कर सनधाारण क़ी अनुमसत द़ी गय़ी
िै जो सवसधक नि़ीं िै। सवद्धान असधवक्ता का यि
कर्थन ि़ी सि़ी नि़ीं िै क्योंसक धारा- 56(1) में
ज्वाइन्ट कसमश्नर को यि असधकार प्राि िै सक
कर
सनधाारण
आदेश
क़ी
वैधासनकता/
अनौसचकता के संबंध में समाधान िो जाने पर
ऐसा आदेश पाररत कर सकते िै, जैसा वि सफर
समझे अर्थाात यसद व यि उसचत पाते िै सक वाद
के तथ्यों के पररप्रेक्ष्य में कर सनधाारण असधकाऱी
को राजस्व सित में कर सनधाारण/पुनः कर
सनधाारण िेतु वाद के सनस्तारण क़ी अनुमसत सदया
जाना आवश्क िै जो वि ऐसा आदेश पाररत
कर सकते िै। सवद्वान असधवक्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत
सनणाय-मैससा सम्राि कारपेि इलािाबाद बनाम
स़ी०ि़ी०ि़ी०(सुप्रा) के मामले में धारा 10ब़ी के
अंतगात सडप्ट़ी (कायापालक) के आदेश क़ी सि़ी
ठिराया गया, सजसमें उनके द्वारा कर सनधाारण
आदेश के अवैधासनकता/अनौसयत्यता के सम्बन्ध
में समाधान िो जाने के पिात कर सनधाारण
असधकाऱी को पुनः कर सनधाारण आदेश पाररत
करने क़ी अनुमसत द़ी गय़ी र्थ़ी।"

10. On perusal of the order passed by
this Court in M/s Samrat Carpet (supra),
which has been relied upon by the
Tribunal, it reveals that the same is entirely
on a different context, as the power is
confined to the examination of the record
as it was before the Assessing Officer;
wherein this Court held that the Deputy
Commissioner
has
exceeded
in
its
jurisdiction in passing the order under
section 10-B of the Act; whereas, in the
case in hand, initiation of proceedings
under section 56(1) of the VAT Act was
under challenge for grant of permission for
reassessment of dealer and not the power of
the Commissioner as provided under
section 56(1) of the VAT Act. The Tribunal
as
well
as
the
Joint
Commissioner
978 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Executive) lost sight of this fact and
granted permission to reassess the dealer.

11. For deciding the issue in hand,
certain provisions, i.e., sections 29, 31 &
56 (1) of the U.P. VAT Act, will be
necessary to be looked into. Section 56 of
the VAT Act reads as under:-

"56. Revision by the Commissioner -
(1)The Commissioner or such other officer
not below the rank of Joint Commissioner,
as may be authorised in this behalf by the
Commissioner may call for and examine
the record relating to any order, passed by
any officer subordinate to him, for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the
legality or propriety of such order and may
pass such order with respect thereto as he
thinks fit.

(2)No order under sub-section (1)
affecting the interest of a party adversely
shall be passed unless he has been given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard.

(3)No order under sub-section (1),
shall be passed

(a)to revise an order, which is or
has been the subject matter of an appeal
under section 55, or an order passed by the
appellate authority under that section.

(b)before the expiration of sixty
days from the date of the order in question;

(c)after the expiration of fouryears from the date of the order in
question.

Explanation-
Where
the
appeal
against any order is withdrawn or is
dismissed for non-payment of fee payable
under section 72 or for non-compliance of
sub-section (3) of section 55, the order
shall not be deemed to have been the
subject-matter of an appeal under section
55;

(4) No dealer or any other person,
aggrieved by an order against which
appeal lies under section 55, shall be
entitled to present an application for
review of such order under this section."

12. Bare perusal of section shows that
the Commissioner is empowered to call for
and examine the record relating to any
order passed by any Officer subordinate to
him for the purpose of satisfying himself as
to the legality and propriety of such
order.

13. Section 29 (1) of the VAT Act
provides for reassessment, which is quoted
below:-

"29. Assessment of tax of turnover
escaped from assessment: (1) If the
assessing authority has reason to believe
that the whole or any part of the turnover
of a dealer, for any assessment year or part
thereof, has escaped assessment to tax or
has been under assessed or has been
assessed to tax at a rate lower than that at
which it is assessable under this Act, or any
deductions or exemptions have been
wrongly allowed in respect thereof, the
assessing authority may, after issuing
notice to the dealer and making such
inquiry as it may consider necessary,
assess or re-assess the dealer to tax
according to law :

Provided that the tax shall be charged
at the rate at which it would have been
charged had the turnover not escaped
assessment or full assessment as the case
may be.

Explanation I:- Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to prevent the
assessing
authority
from
making
an
assessment to the best of its judgement.

Explanation II:- For the purpose of
this section and of section 31, "assessing
authority" means the officer or authority
who passed the earlier assessment order, if
4 All. M/S R.M.G. Fabricators Vs. The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U.P. & Anr.
979
any, and includes the officer or authority
having jurisdiction for the time being to
assess the dealer.

Explanation III:- Notwithstanding the
issuance of notice under this sub-section,
where an order of assessment or reassessment is in existence from before the
issuance of such notice it shall continue to be
effective as such, until varied by an order of
assessment or re-assessment made under this
section in pursuance of such notice.

(2) .....

(3) .....

(4) .....

(5) .....

(6) ....

(7): Where the Commissioner, on his
own or on the basis of reasons recorded by
the assessing authority, is satisfied that it is
just and expedient so to do, authorises the
assessing authority in that behalf, such
assessment or re-assessment may be made
within a period of eight years after expiry of
assessment year to which such assessment or
re-assessment relates notwithstanding such
assessment or re-assessment may involve a
change of opinion:

Provided that it shall not be necessary
for the Commissioner to hear the dealer
before authorising the assessing authority."

14. Section 29(7) of the VAT Act
empowers the Commissioner to grant
permission for reassessment after expiry of
the assessment year, but within 8 years of
such assessment year, on his own or on the
basis of reasons recorded by the assessing
authority can extend the period of limitation
and grant permission to the assessing
authority of the respective dealer for
reassessment.

15. Section 31 of the VAT Act
provides for rectification of mistake, which
is also quoted below:-

"Section 31: Rectification of mistakes
:-(1) Any officer, authority, the Tribunal or
the High Court may on its own motion or
on the application of the dealer or any
other interested person rectify any mistake
apparent on the face of record, in any
order passed by him under this Act, within
three years from the date of the order
sought to be rectified:

Provided that where an application
under this sub-section has been made
within such period of three years, it may be
disposed of even beyond such period:

Provided further that no rectification
which has the effect of enhancing the
assessment, penalty, fees or other dues,
shall
be
made
unless
reasonable
opportunity of being heard has been given
to the dealer or other person likely to be
affected by such enhancement.

(2) Where such rectification has the
effect of enhancing the assessment, the
assessing authority shall serve on the
dealer a revised notice of demand in the
prescribed form and therefrom all the
provisions of this Act shall apply as if such
notice had been served in the first instance"

16. Section 31 of the VAT Act
empowers
the
officer,
authority,
the
Tribunal or the High Court to rectify any
mistake apparent on the face of record on
its own omission or on the application of
the dealer or any other interested person.

17. On perusal of sections 29, 29(7),
31 & 56 of the VAT Act, it is apparently
clear that the Legislature, in its wisdom,
has used/empowered the authority how to
act as per the requirement of the time/in the
interest of the Revenue/dealer.

18. Section 31 of the Act provides
rectification of the order on an application
of any interested person; whereas, section
980 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
29 of the Act empowers on the reason
recorded by the assessing authority or the
Commissioner on its own after being
satisfied that it is just and expedient to do
so to grant permission of the closed
assessment for reassessment, where the
turnover of a dealer for any assessment
year or part thereof has escaped assessment
to tax or has been under-assessed or has
been assessed, but taxed at a lower rate
than what at which it is assessable under
the Act or any deduction or exemption have
wrongly been allowed in respect thereof;
meaning thereby, under sections 29 & 31 of
the Act appropriate order can be passed by
moving
an
application
or
seeking
permission by the authority concerned.

19. However, section 56 of the Act
does not provide any power to the
Commissioner to grant permission of
reassessment on the application of the
assessing authority. There is no dispute
that the Commissioner, on its own motion,
call for and examine the records relating to
any
order
passed
by
any
Officer
subordinate to him for the purposes of
satisfying himself as to the legality or
propriety of such order and thereafter,
passed such order in respect thereof as he
deems fit.

20. The power of the Commissioner is
not in question in the present revision as
per section 56(1) of the Act. The issue
involved in the present revision is only
confined
to
the
initiation
of
the
reassessment proceedings by the assessing
authority
seeking
permission
of
the
Commissioner to reassess the revisionist
under section 56(1) of the Act. If this
procedure is permitted, then section 29 of
the Act provides for reassessment will
become redundant. Once there is a specific
provision empowering authorities to act as
per the procedure, the same must be
adhered to. Any deviation from such
procedure will cause havoc in the State.

21. The Division Bench of this Court
in M/s A.K. Corporation & Another Vs.
State of U.P. & Others reported in 1994
UPTC 75 has held that revisional authority
has only empowered under section 10-B of
the Act to satisfy itself about the propriety
or legality of the order and not empowered
the authority for initiating the proceeding
for rectification or reassessment. It was
further observed that if part of turnover of
the assessee has escaped assessment or has
wrongly been assessed or under-assessed,
then the only course available to the
authority under the Act was to issue notice
for reassessment under section 21 of the
Act, but the impugned action under the
revisional jurisdiction cannot be permitted.

22. Section 56 of the VAT Act would
reveal that the section has wide power, but
seeking of permission by the assessing
authority for making reassessment of the
dealer is not conferred under the said
provision.
For
reassessment,
different
provision has been prescribed under the
VAT Act,i.e., section 29 and its subsections. It is not the case of the
Department that section has wrongly been
quoted,
but
specifically
the
Joint
Commissioner (Executive), in the opening
paragraph of the order under section 56(1)
of the VAT Act while granting permission,
has mentioned the said fact that the
permission for reassessment is sought by
the assessing authority and the permission
has wrongly been granted by the Joint
Commissioner
(Executive).
The
Joint
Commissioner (Executive) has exceeded in
his jurisdiction, which has been endorsed
by the Tribunal without looking into the
provisions of the Act, which is very clear.
4 All. Ajay Verma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
981
In the opinion of this Court, the Tribunal
should have allowed the dealer's appeal.

23. In view of the aforesaid facts &
circumstances of the case as well as the law
laid down by this Court, the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

24. The revision is allowed with cost
of Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be deposited
within a month from today. An affidavit of
compliance of deposit shall be filed within
two months from today in the Registry of
this Court, failing which the matter be
listed in Chamber.

25. The questions of law are answered
accordingly.
----------
(2022)04ILR A981
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ Tax No. 1169 of 2021

Ajay Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Mahima Jaiswal, Sri Saurabh Sharma, Sri
Shambhu Chopra (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Krishna Ji Shukla

A. Tax Law - Jurisdiction - CGST
Act/UPGST
Act,2017
-
Sections
73,
2(21), 2(91), 6 & 9 - CGST Act,2017 -
Sections 6(1) & 6(2)(a) - The question
involved in the present case is not as to
the inherent lack of jurisdiction instead
but is as to whether the impugned show
cause notice and the assessment order
issued by the respondent No. 4 are
without jurisdiction due to assignment
of the assessee to the Central Officer? A
further question would be as to whether the
impugned
show
cause
notice
or
the
assessment order would become void ab initio
on account of non assignment of the case to
the respondent No. 4 even when the
petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction of the
respondent No. 4 and participated in the
proceeding without raising any objection as to
the jurisdiction? (Para 17)

Sub-section (91) of Sections 2 & 6 of the
CGST Act/UPGST Act,2017 - read with the
minutes of the meeting of the GST Council
dated 16.1.2017 agenda Item No. 28 and the
order No. 04/2018 dated 12.9.2018 jointly
issued by the State and Central authorities,
leads to an irresistible conclusion that proper
officer under the UPGST Act and proper officer
under the CGST Act both have jurisdiction over
assessees
falling
within
their
territorial
jurisdiction but for administrative convenience,
assignment of taxpayers have been made by the
designated committee at the State level. (Para
15, 18)

In terms of the order No. 04/2018 dated
12.9.2021 issued by the Commissioner,
Commercial Tax, Uttar Pradesh and the
Chief Commissioner of Central Tax,
Meerut Zone, Lucknow, the assessment of
petitioner under the Act was assigned to the
Central Officer and not to the respondent No.
4. However, the respondent No. 4 took up the
matter and issued the impugned show cause
notice dated 25.6.2021 which was replied by
the petitioner without raising any objection as
to jurisdiction on account of assignment of
case to the Central Officer. It was also not
brought to the notice of the respondent No. 4
by the petitioner that his case is assigned to a
Central
Officer.
Instead,
the
petitioner
participated in the assessment proceeding
and the assessing officer i.e. the proper
officer (respondent No. 4) has passed the
impugned
assessment
order
dated
09.08.2021, which can be said to be
contributory error of jurisdiction. (Para 16,
19)