Facts of the Case:

The petitioner was subjected to a common Order-in-Original dated 21.03.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST enactments covering its operations in both Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. In respect of the Maharashtra portion of the demand, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority at Mumbai. However, the appeal was rejected on 31.01.2024 on the ground that the appellate authority in Mumbai lacked jurisdiction and that the petitioner should approach the competent authority at Chennai.

Subsequently, after introduction of the amnesty/waiver scheme under Section 128A of the GST Acts, the petitioner filed an application in Form GST SPL-02 seeking waiver of interest and penalty. The application was filed within the prescribed time and the tax dues had already been discharged before the notified cut-off date of 31.03.2025. While the application was accepted and waiver was granted in relation to the Tamil Nadu operations, the claim relating to Maharashtra was rejected.

The impugned order proceeded on the basis that the authority dealing with the application was not competent to grant waiver in respect of liabilities pertaining to Maharashtra. Aggrieved by the partial rejection of the waiver claim, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The petitioner contended that the waiver application had been filed before the very officer who had issued the Order-in-Original under Section 73 and that all statutory conditions prescribed under Section 128A for grant of waiver had been fulfilled. The tax liability had been discharged before the notified date and the application had been filed within the prescribed timeline.

It was further argued that neither Section 128A nor Rule 164 contains any provision restricting the authority of the officer who issued the original order from considering the waiver application. Therefore, the rejection of the waiver claim relating to Maharashtra solely on the ground of lack of jurisdiction was contrary to the statutory framework.

Issue:

Whether an application filed under Section 128A read with Rule 164 of the GST Rules can be rejected on the ground that the authority processing the application lacks jurisdiction to grant waiver in respect of tax liabilities pertaining to another State, despite the fact that a common Order-in-Original under Section 73 had been passed covering both States.

Held That:

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s application squarely fell within Section 128A(1)(b) and that the tax liability had admittedly been discharged before the prescribed date. The Court accepted the Revenue’s submission to the limited extent that Explanation (b) to Rule 164 and CBIC Circular No. 238 support the proposition that the “proper officer” for dealing with Form GST SPL-02 applications is the officer contemplated under Section 79.

However, the Court noted that neither Section 79 nor the provisions contained in Chapter XVIII of the GST Rules specify any clear mechanism for identifying such proper officer in a situation where a single order covers multiple States. The Court emphasized that both Section 79 and Section 128A employ the expression “the proper officer,” indicating a specific authority. More importantly, Rule 164 contemplates filing of a single application in Form GST SPL-01 or GST SPL-02 and does not require separate applications State-wise.

The Court further observed that the same officer had issued a common Order-in-Original under Section 73 covering both Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra operations. In such circumstances, there was no statutory basis for that officer to decline jurisdiction for considering the waiver application insofar as the Maharashtra component was concerned.

Accordingly, the Court held that the rejection of the waiver claim relating to Maharashtra was unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside to that limited extent and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The respondent authority was directed to reconsider the waiver application in relation to the Maharashtra operations after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Case Name: Indian Bank v. Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise dated 31.07.2026