2023 (7) TMI 529 - HC - GST

Jurisdiction of Proper Officer - SCN issued by Sales Tax Officer Class II, AVATO, Ward-67, Zone-6, Delhi (not in the rank of the Assistant Commissioner) - Cancellation of petitioner s GST registration - HELD THAT - It is the petitioner s case that the records of the petitioner were called by respondent no.2 in connection with the investigation into the affairs of one Mr. Rajneesh Bansal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the investigation was commenced against the petitioner. The petitioner is not precluded from canvassing her contention that the proceedings in terms of the impugned show cause notice are not maintainable, before the concerned officer. The petitioner is not precluded from raising this objection in response to the impugned show cause notice. Needless to state that if any such objection is raised, the concerned officer shall examine the same. Insofar as the cancellation of the GST registration is concerned, the learned counsel does not press the issue before this Court. He reserves the right, if any, to approach the authorities once again in this regard. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the cancellation of GST registration, jurisdiction of the proper officer, and parallel proceedings by different tax authorities.

Cancellation of GST Registration:
The petitioner challenged the cancellation of its GST registration, claiming that the order was issued by a person who was not a proper officer. The petitioner also contested a show cause notice proposing a demand under the CGST Act. The Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner sought restoration of GST registration and a fresh order by the proper officer.

Jurisdiction of Proper Officer:
The petitioner argued that the officer who issued the impugned order and show cause notice was not of the rank of Assistant Commissioner and thus could not be considered a proper officer. However, the respondents contended that the officer was a Goods and Services Tax Officer, thereby authorized to issue such notices and orders.

Parallel Proceedings:
The petitioner claimed that authorities in Chandigarh had already initiated an investigation into the petitioner, seizing records and recording statements. The petitioner argued that this precluded the officer in Delhi from commencing parallel proceedings. The court found this contention unpersuasive, noting that the investigation in Chandigarh was related to a different individual and did not prevent the proceedings in Delhi.

The court dismissed the petition, stating that there were no grounds to entertain it, and all pending applications were disposed of.