Patna High Court
Ram Sundar Prasad Singh @ Ram Sundar PrasadversusThe Union of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Patna High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the application.
Summary
The petitioner, a GST-registered entity, claimed to have paid tax on licence fees for parking spaces in three jurisdictions and filed returns accordingly. The adjudicatory officer in Chandigarh issued a notice under Section 61 of the CGST Act alleging non‑payment of tax and proceeded to assess tax, interest, and penalty under Section 73. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari, arguing lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and that tax had already been deposited. The Union of India and the State of Bihar contended that the writ petition was not maintainable before the Patna High Court. The Court held that the order dated 31‑12‑2025 was passed by an officer whose decisions can be challenged only before a court with appellate or supervisory jurisdiction, not the Patna High Court. Consequently, the writ application was dismissed, with liberty reserved to approach the appropriate forum.
Issues considered
- Whether the adjudicatory authority in Chandigarh had jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 61 and make an assessment under Section 73 of the CGST Act when tax had already been deposited.
- Whether the order passed without a personal hearing violated the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Patna High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the order of the ETO‑cum‑Proper Officer, Chandigarh.
Legislation cited
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act — s. 39, 44, 61, 73, 9(3), 9(4)
Subjects
- GST
- jurisdiction
- writ of certiorari
- natural justice
- assessment
- section 61
- section 73
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4657 of 2026
======================================================
Ram Sundar Prasad Singh @ Ram Sundar Prasad, Son of Late Ram Krishna
Prasad Singh, Resident of- D-401, Prasad Apartment, Kalimandir Road,
Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Post office and Police Station- Hanuman Nagar,
Sampatchak, B.H Colony District- Patna, Bihar-800026.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block
New Delhi.
2. The Goods and Service Tax Council through Secretary, 5 th floor, Tower
-Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Road, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-
110001.
3. The Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Central Annexe Building,
Veerchand Patel Path, Patna, Bihar.
4. The Chief Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of
National Capital Territory, 1st Floor, Vyapar Bhawan, I.P.State, New Delhi-
110002.
5. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Patna South-2, Patna, Bihar.
6. The ETO Cum Proper Officer, Ward-8, Excise and Taxation Department,
Additional Town Hall building, Sector 70C, Chandigarh, email-
[email protected].
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate
For the UoI : Mr. Anshuman Singh, Senior SC
For the State : Mr. Vivek Prasad, GP-7
Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, AC to GP-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 30-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST & CX as also learned
GP-7 for the State.
2. This writ application has been filed seeking the
following reliefs:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4657 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
2/6
“i. To issue writ of certiorari to quash and set
aside the order passed by respondent no. 6
dated 31.12.2025 u/s 73 of the Central Goods
and service tax Act (hereinafter referred to as
the CGST Act or Act) because the petitioner
had already deposited tax with respect to
turnover before issue of notice for making
assessment. The respondent adjudicatory
authority therefore, had not jurisdiction to
initiate proceeding u/s 61 and make assessment
u/s 73 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act.
ii. To hold and declare that the order passed on
31.12.2025 is against the principle of Natural
Justice as the respondent has not provided
opportunity of personal hearing before passing
order nor had considered the evidence and
document regarding payment of tax. The order
therefore is against the principle of natural
justice.
iii. To further hold and declare that the
petitioner has already paid tax as per law within
the time allowed and had also filed return as
prescribed, the charging of interest and
imposing penalty, therefore, is illegal, arbitrary
and unreasonable.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is
registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act (in short ‘GST
Act’) in the State of Bihar, the National Capital of Delhi and
Chandigarh. For the period from April 2021 to March 2022, the
petitioner has taken lease of parking space from the three
Patna High Court CWJC No.4657 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
3/6
organizations and entered into lease agreement. The
organizations are East Central Railway, Patna, Municipal
Corporation, Chandigarh and Container Corporation of India,
New Delhi. The petitioner made payment of licence fee of
Rs.101,45,780/- to the Container Corporation of India, New
Delhi, Rs.396,51,850/- to the Municipal Corporation,
Chandigarh and Rs.142,21,343/- to the East Central Railway at
Patna. The petitioner claims to have deposited and paid tax of
Rs.115,23,596/- (18% of Rs.640,19,974/-) under Section 9(3)
and 9(4) of the CGST Act. It is, thus, submitted that the
petitioner has deposited the tax on the total amount of licence
fee paid to the respondents.
4. In the background of the aforesaid facts, it is
submitted that the petitioner has filed quarterly return under
Section 39 and annual return under Section 44 of the CGST Act
to the Assessing Officer at Chandigarh, National Capital of
Delhi and also to the Assessing Officer, Patna, Bihar. The
returns were filed separately within the three states and union
territory showing therein the turnover and the amount of tax
paid.
5. The bone of contention is that while the
Adjudicatory Officers at Patna and Delhi have accepted the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4657 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
4/6
return, the Adjudicatory Authority at Chandigarh issued notice
under Section 61 of the CGST Act dated 11.08.2025 making
allegation therein that the petitioner had not paid tax at the rate
of 18% under reverse charge mechanism on the aforesaid
amount of licence fee. Paragraphs ‘7’ and ‘8’ of the writ
application are being reproduced hereunder for a ready
reference:-
“7. That, it is stated that the adjudicatory officer
at Patna and Delhi has accepted the return
however, the adjudicatory authority at
Chandigarh issued notice u/s 61 of CGST Act
dated 11.08.2025, making allegation therein that
the petitioner had not paid tax at the rate of 18
percent under reverse charge mechanism on
aforesaid amount of license fee. As per notice
the petitioner had paid license fee (lease rent) of
Rs.6,43,20,182/- but he had not deposited tax of
Rs.57,88,816/- under Central Goods and Service
Tax Act, and Rs.57,88,816/- under State Goods
and Service Tax Act. The respondent therefore,
initiated proceeding u/s 61 of the Act. The
respondent also proposed to charge interest of
Rs.41,62,238/- and 41,62,238 under CGST and
SGST respectively. The claim of input tax credit
was also doubted in the notice. This notice
however, has not been served to the petitioner.
Photocopy of notice in prescribed
form no. ASMT-10 issued by
respondent no.- 6 is annexed
herewith as annexure-P/3 which
form part of this petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4657 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
5/6
8. That, it is stated that issue of notice under
section 61 of the Act dated 11.08.2025
(Annexure-3) is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Section 61 relates to scrutiny of return. As per
section 61 of the GST Act, the adjudicatory
authority could scrutinized the return which filed
by the petitioner under section 39 and 44 of the
GST Act. On scrutiny, if deficiency regarding
non payment of tax is found, the authority could
issue notice to the petitioner to explain the
discrepancies/deviation.”
6. Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the CGST & CX has taken a preliminary objection
as to maintainability of the writ application in this Court. It is
submitted that from the narration of facts present in the writ
application itself, it would appear that the impugned order has
been passed by the Assessing Officer at Chandigarh. Whatever
be the decision, the same may be challenged only before a court
of competent jurisdiction. The return was being filed separately
at Chandigarh and the dispute has arisen out of the order passed
by the Assessing Officer on the return filed by the petitioner at
Chandigarh. In such view of the matter, no part of the cause of
action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The fact
that the petitioner has obtained licences/lease of parking space
from East Central Railway, Patna, Municipal
Patna High Court CWJC No.4657 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026
6/6
Corporation, Chandigarh and Container Corporation of India,
New Delhi would not, by any stretch of imagination, confer a
jurisdiction upon this Court.
7. We agree with the submission of learned Senior
Standing Counsel for the CGST & CX. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the impugned order dated 31.12.2025
having been passed by the ETO-cum-Proper Officer, Ward No.8,
Excise and Taxation Department, Additional Town Hall
Building, Sector-70C, Chandigarh (Respondent No. 6), any
challenge to the said order may only be made before a
competent court having appellate power or supervisory power
over the Respondent No. 6. Patna Court would have no
jurisdiction to entertain this writ application.
8. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed as not
entertained. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to apply for
appropriate remedy before appropriate forum, as may be
advised to him.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
lekhi/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.