The Allahabad High Court has held that the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Central GST Superintendent under the CBIC circular dated February 9, 2018, is to be assessed with reference to the CGST demand alone. An equal amount proposed as SGST does not alter that jurisdiction.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi declined to interfere with a show cause notice proposing a CGST demand of ₹6,80,522 and directed the petitioner to file a reply within four weeks and cooperate in the proceedings, which are to be concluded in accordance with law.
Buy Now: 80+ Judgements Indirect Tax – September 2026 E-Magazine
The petitioner/assessee approached the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Superintendent on the strength of a circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on February 9, 2018.
The dispute concerned whether the proposed SGST demand should also be considered when applying the Superintendent’s pecuniary limit under the circular. The show cause notice sought to confirm a CGST demand of ₹6,80,522, and an equal SGST demand was also proposed.
The CGST department clarified that, under the circular, the Superintendent’s pecuniary jurisdiction extended to a CGST demand of up to ₹10 lakh.
The bench observed that the assignment of jurisdiction had been made with reference to a CGST demand of up to ₹10 lakh.
The court noted that the CGST demand in the case was ₹6,80,522 and therefore fell within that limit. It held that the proposed equal demand of SGST would not alter the jurisdiction of the Central GST Superintendent, since the jurisdiction had been defined by reference to the CGST demand alone.
The bench observed that the other grounds pressed by the petitioner were factual in nature. It also referred to the prima facie facts concerning the conditions that may give rise to jurisdiction under Section 74 of the GST law.
The court declined to interfere in the writ petition. The order does not set out detailed findings on the underlying allegations or determine the merits of the proposed demand.
The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction that the proceedings may be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: Customs Can Sample Imported Areca Nuts To Investigate Misdeclaration: Calcutta High Court
