9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 825 - HC - GSTJurisdiction - power of Joint Commissioner (Investigation) Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan I, Jaipur to exercise powers and functions of adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Act of 2017 - whether notification dated 25.02.2020 confers blanket powers on the Joint Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner in the matter of exercise of powers under Section 73 of the Act of 2017? - HELD THAT - It is found that for the purposes of exercising powers of adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, proper officer would be one who has been assigned that function as adjudicating authority. While notification dated 25.02.2020 provides that for the purposes of exercising powers under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, the officers of the rank of Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner would be competent, the notification also clearly says that such power would be exercisable by them within their jurisdiction. All other notifications which have been filed by the respondents do not show that in relation to exercise of powers of adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Act of 2017, the jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan I, Jaipur has been extended beyond his jurisdiction including Udaipur jurisdiction. List the matter on 12.07.2024.
Issues involved: Interpretation of notifications conferring powers under Section 73 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the Joint Commissioner (Investigation) Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan-I, Jaipur.
Summary: Issue 1: Interpretation of notifications conferring powers under Section 73 of the Act The petitioner argued that notifications did not empower the Joint Commissioner (Investigation) Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan-I, Jaipur to act as an adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Act in their case. They contended that the notifications did not extend the power of adjudication to the Joint Commissioner beyond their jurisdiction. On the other hand, the State argued that the Joint Commissioner was designated as the proper officer for exercising powers under Section 73 for the entire State of Rajasthan, including Udaipur. Decision: The Court found that the notifications did not extend the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner (Investigation) Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan-I, Jaipur beyond their designated jurisdiction, as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the respondents were restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner based on the impugned order. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority The Court noted that for the purpose of acting as an adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Act, the proper officer must be assigned that function. While the notifications allowed officers of certain ranks to exercise powers under Section 73, it was specified that such powers were to be exercised within their respective jurisdictions. Decision: The Court emphasized that the power of adjudication under Section 73 was to be exercised within the jurisdiction of the designated officers. As the notifications did not extend the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner (Investigation) Enforcement Wing, Rajasthan-I, Jaipur beyond their designated area, the impugned order was deemed to lack jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Court restrained the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioner based on the impugned order and granted time for the respondents to file their return. The matter was listed for further proceedings, with an inclination to dispose of the petition promptly once the pleadings were complete.
|
