Facts of the Case:
In this case, the petitioner, a GST-registered entity operating in Bihar, Delhi and Chandigarh, had taken on lease parking spaces from the East Central Railway, Patna, the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, and the Container Corporation of India, New Delhi during FY 2021–22. It claimed to have discharged GST liability under the reverse charge mechanism on the licence fee paid and filed separate GST returns in all three jurisdictions.
While the authorities at Patna and Delhi accepted the returns, the Excise and Taxation Department at Chandigarh issued a notice under Section 61 of the CGST Act alleging non-payment of GST under the reverse charge mechanism and subsequently passed an assessment order under Section 73 raising tax, interest and penalty.
Challenging the assessment order, the petitioner approached the Patna High Court contending that the proceedings under Sections 61 and 73 were without jurisdiction since the tax had already been paid, and further alleged violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that no effective opportunity of personal hearing had been granted.
Issue:
Whether the Patna High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the validity of an assessment order passed by the GST authorities at Chandigarh, merely because part of the petitioner’s business activities and one of the leased properties were situated in Bihar.
Held That:
The Court observed that the entire challenge was directed against the assessment order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Proper Officer, Ward No. 8, Excise and Taxation Department, Chandigarh. It noted that the petitioner itself had admitted that separate GST registrations and returns were maintained for Bihar, Delhi and Chandigarh, and that the disputed proceedings had arisen exclusively from the scrutiny of the returns filed before the Chandigarh GST authorities. Therefore, the impugned order originated from the Chandigarh jurisdiction and any judicial review thereof could only be undertaken by a court exercising territorial jurisdiction over the adjudicating authority.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s attempt to invoke the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court merely because one of the leased parking spaces was situated in Patna and licence fees had also been paid to the East Central Railway, Patna. According to the Court, these facts did not constitute a material or integral part of the cause of action for challenging the Chandigarh assessment order. The mere existence of business operations, leased premises or GST registrations in Bihar could not confer territorial jurisdiction when the assessment proceedings, adjudication and impugned order had all emanated from the Chandigarh authorities.
The Court accepted the preliminary objection raised by the respondents that the appropriate remedy was to challenge the order before the competent court or appellate forum having supervisory jurisdiction over the Chandigarh Proper Officer. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Since the petition failed on this preliminary ground, the Court deliberately refrained from examining the substantive contentions relating to the legality of proceedings under Sections 61 and 73 of the CGST Act, the petitioner’s plea that GST under the reverse charge mechanism had already been discharged, the alleged violation of principles of natural justice, and the levy of interest and penalty.
The Patna High Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the preliminary ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction without entering into the merits of the controversy.
Case Name: Ram Sundar Prasad Singh Versus The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, The Goods and Service Tax Council, The Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, Patna, The Chief Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi, The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Patna, The ETO Cum Proper Officer, Ward-8, Excise and Taxation Department, Chandigarh. dated 30.06.2026
To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1831
