Officer issuing combined Section 73 order retains jurisdiction for Section 128A waiver across registrations

By | August 15, 2026
0 Comment
Officer issuing combined Section 73 order retains jurisdiction for Section 128A waiver across registrations

Issue

Whether a Proper Officer who issued a combined assessment order under Section 73 covering multiple state GST registrations has the statutory competence to adjudicate a Section 128A waiver application (Form GST SPL-02) for all registrations included in that order.

Facts

  • Multiple Registrations: The petitioner maintains GST registrations in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
  • Combined Section 73 Order: A single Proper Officer passed a combined assessment order under Section 73 for both registrations.
  • Waiver Application: Following the payment of tax demands, the petitioner filed Form GST SPL-02 under Section 128A(1)(b) seeking a waiver of interest and penalty.
  • Jurisdictional Bifurcation: The Proper Officer granted the Section 128A waiver for the Tamil Nadu registration but rejected the application for Maharashtra, citing a lack of competence.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner challenged the partial rejection order before the High Court.

Decision

  • Qualified Under Section 128A: The Court confirmed that the petitioner’s waiver application fell squarely within Section 128A(1)(b).
  • Single Application Scheme: Supported by Rule 164 and Section 79, the framework envisages a single application (Form GST SPL-02) without a statutory basis to split jurisdiction.
  • Jurisdiction Retained: Because the same officer had the authority to issue the consolidated Section 73 order, there was no ground to deny jurisdiction for the Maharashtra waiver.
  • Order Set Aside & Remanded: The rejection order regarding the Maharashtra registration was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Proper Officer for reconsideration on merits.

Key Takeaways

  • Jurisdictional Parity: A Proper Officer who holds the authority to pass a combined demand order under Section 73 retains full jurisdiction to decide Section 128A waivers for the entire order.
  • Unified Waiver Process: Rule 164 provides for a single application mechanism, preventing authorities from splitting jurisdiction post-tax payment based on state boundaries.
  • Protection Against Selective Rejection: Tax authorities cannot accept tax payments under a unified order and subsequently disclaim competence for penalty/interest waivers.
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Indian Bank
v.
Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.
WP No. 27544 of 2026
W.M.P. Nos. 30177 & 30180 of 2026
JULY  31, 2026
Shiva Kumar G. and B. Revathi for the Petitioner. K.S. Ramasamy, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. An order in original under Section 73 of applicable GST enactments was issued on 21.03.2023 both in respect of the petitioner’s operations in Tamil Nadu and the State of Maharashtra. As regards the operations in Maharashtra, the petitioner lodged an appeal before the Commissioner Appeals, Mumbai and such appeal was rejected on 31.01.2024 on the ground that the appellate authority has no jurisdiction and that the petitioner has to approach the authority in Chennai. In these circumstances, the petitioner lodged an application for waiver under Section 128A by filing an application in Form GST SPL-02. Said application was allowed partly in respect of the Chennai operations, but rejected in respect of the Maharashtra operations. To the extent of rejection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for waiver was presented before the proper officer who issued the order under Section 73 and that the requirements for waiver under Section 128A are satisfied. He also submits that there is nothing in Section 128A or in Rule 164 which denuded such officer of the authority to consider the waiver application.
3. Mr.K.S.Ramasamy, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice for the respondent. In response, he relies on Circular No.238/32/2024-GST of the CBIC (Circular No.238) to contend that said circular provides that the proper officer to consider an application filed in Form GST SPL-02 is the proper officer for recovery under Section 79.
4. The petitioner’s waiver application falls within the scope of Section 128A(1)(b). The record shows that tax liability was discharged prior to the notified date of 31.03.2025. Upon being presented originally on 26.06.2025, which is within the due date for filing such application, the application was processed and waiver was granted only in respect of the operations in Tamil Nadu.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the ground for rejection is that the proper officer is not competent to waive interest and penalty in respect of operations in Maharashtra. In this regard, relying on Circular No.238, learned senior standing counsel contended that the proper officer in relation to an application in Form GST SPL-02 is the proper officer referred to in Section 79. To this extent, he is correct. Both Explanation (b) to Rule 164 and Circular No.238 support this contention. This, however, leads to the question as to who is the proper officer for purposes of Section 79.
6. Neither Section 79 nor the rules framed thereunder (Chapter XVIII) specify the basis to identify the proper officer. Both Sections 79 and Section 128A, nonetheless, use the expression ‘the proper officer’, thereby indicating that it is a specific person. Significantly, Rule 164 envisages a single application in Form GST SPL-01 or SPL-02, and not multiple applications. Section 79 also provides for availing of the services of a specified officer for recovery. Considering all these aspects, having issued the combined order under Section 73 in respect of both Chennai and Maharashtra locations, there is no statutory basis for the proper officer to decline to exercise jurisdiction in respect of waiver with regard to Maharashtra. Therefore, the impugned order is partly set aside only insofar as the rejection of the waiver claim pertaining to Maharashtra is concerned and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued on the waiver application insofar as Maharashtra is concerned.
7. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.