2018 (9) TMI 1417 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction - Competency to issue SCN - sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of any notification under Section 4 of IGST Act, 2017, the respondent No.4 is not competent to issue show cause notice and the impugned seizure memo dated 15.07.2018 is wholly without jurisdiction - Held that - The officers appointed under the MPGST Act, 2017 was authorized to be proper officers for the purposes of the IGST Act. The officers appointed under the MPGST Act are authorized to be proper officers for the purpose of IGST and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no notification was issued and in absence of any notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act has no force, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the action of the respondent No.4 is wholly without jurisdiction. Petition dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal provided under the statute.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of State Government officials under IGST Act, 2017 without separate notification.

Analysis:
The petitioner, Advantage India Logistics Private Limited, sought the quashment of a seizure memo dated 15.07.2018 issued under Section 129(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the State Government officials had no jurisdiction to exercise powers under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) without a separate notification authorizing them. The main argument presented was the lack of notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act, rendering the actions of the respondent without jurisdiction.

The IGST Act, 2017 deals with the taxability of inter-state supply of goods and services. Section 4 of the IGST Act specifies that officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act are authorized to be proper officers for the IGST Act, subject to government notifications. The court noted that officers appointed under the Madhya Pradesh GST Act, 2017 were authorized as proper officers for the IGST Act, even in the absence of a specific notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act.

The court highlighted that the respondent No.4 was authorized as a proper officer under the Madhya Pradesh GST Act, with powers of inspection, search, and seizure. The case involved a vehicle transporting goods for inter-state supply, where discrepancies were found in the E-Way Bill. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, leading to the seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the MPGST Act. The respondent passed a final order directing the petitioner to pay tax and penalty under Section 129(3) of the MPGST Act.

The petitioner argued based on constitutional provisions and the absence of a notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act, contending that the respondent had no authority to pass orders. However, the court, after considering arguments and provisions of the IGST Act, held that officers appointed under the MPGST Act were authorized for IGST purposes. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of statutory appeal under the Act for the petitioner to pursue remedy, thus declining to entertain the petition further.