FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

Leave granted.

The appellant is aggrieved by an assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Anakapalli Circle, Visakhapatnam Division, Andhra Pradesh made under Section 74(9) read with Rule 142(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Act and Rules made there under. In the assessment order, the dues of the appellant-assessee has been quantified to be Rs.4,03,67,26,846/- and interest of Rs.1,44,82,10,975/- as also penalty of Rs.4,03,67,26,846/- have been quantified. The appellant questions legality of the order and one of the grounds of challenge is that the Officer who had made the assessment order was not proper Officer and it should have been the Additional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner. The High Court, however, rejected the writ petition on the ground of there being alternative remedy.

What was argued before the High Court was on jurisdictional ground and it is not disputed on behalf of the respondent-State that the question raised was a jurisdictional issue before the High Court.

In such circumstances in our opinion, the High Court ought to have addressed the jurisdictional question and the appellant ought not to have been non-suited on the ground of existence of alternative remedy. The point urged before the High Court goes to the root of the controversy, which gives rise to the present proceeding. In the event the High Court found that the officer who passed the assessment order had the authority to do so, on such finding the writ petition could be dismissed as there being alternative remedy under the statute.

We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to High Court for adjudication on the question of the jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to pass the assessment order, which was challenged before the High Court.

We request the High Court to take up this matter expeditiously.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.