9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 870 - HC - GSTLack of jurisdiction and power to issue the notice - demand of tax and penalty - deemed owner of consignment. Lack of jurisdiction and power to issue the notice - demand of tax and penalty - HELD THAT - Provision in section 4 of IGST Act is cross authorization, inter alia, of officers of State Tax. There is no dispute that there has been aforesaid notifications for appointment of proper officers and assignment of powers and duties to them as officers of State Tax. For purposes of the IGST Act, the empowering cross authorization provision says that inter alia, officers of State Tax are authorized to be proper officers for the purposes of that Act. The authorization is subject to such exceptions and conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification specify. It is clear that there has been no notification limiting authority of cross authorized officers by way of exception or condition. In the circumstances, the appointment and powers of officers of State Tax, as proper officers will, under the cross authorization provision, empower them to correspondingly act under the IGST Act. Deemed owner of consignment - HELD THAT - The prerogative to deem, as appears from paragraph-6, is with revenue. There are no reason to interfere - The writ petition is dismissed.
Issues: Jurisdiction of proper officer under IGST Act, cross authorization, authority of officers under State Tax, deemed owner of goods under CGST Act.
In this judgment by the High Court, the primary issue was the jurisdiction and authority of the proper officer under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged an order demanding tax and penalty, arguing that the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax lacked the jurisdiction to issue the notice. The petitioner's advocate highlighted Section 4 of the IGST Act, which authorizes officers appointed under State Goods and Services Tax Act to act as proper officers for the IGST Act, subject to government notifications specifying exceptions and conditions. The petitioner contended that the lack of subsequent notifications delineating jurisdictions and functions created confusion and hardship for dealers. The petitioner further argued that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs circular clarified that either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed the owner of detained goods under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, with the petitioner being the consignee and thus the deemed owner. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties pointed to notifications authorizing proper officers under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, asserting that these notifications, when read together, provided clear authorization and left no room for the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge. The petitioner contested that these notifications were issued by the State authority and not under the IGST Act. The Court analyzed the cross authorization provision in Section 4 of the IGST Act, noting that notifications had been issued for the appointment of proper officers under State Tax with assigned powers and duties. The Court emphasized that the lack of notifications limiting the authority of cross-authorized officers meant that officers of State Tax were empowered to act under the IGST Act. Additionally, the Court addressed the petitioner's argument of being deemed the owner of the consignment under a circular, highlighting that the prerogative to deem ownership rested with the revenue authority. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order demanding tax and penalty.
|
