9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 247 - HC - GSTConstitutionality of Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST dated 05.07.2017 and Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 09.2.2018 - ultra vires the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 or not - proper officers for the purposes of discharge of functions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - It is unable to sustain that submission since the said writ petition itself had been instituted by an individual who was not named or had been found in the course of any investigation to be the operator of the various firms concerned. Conclusion - The procedural challenges to administrative actions such as the issuance of SCNs must be substantiated by clear evidence of procedural or substantive violations of the law. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations which stand levelled there are no ground to interdict the SCN proceedings. Petition dismissed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered by the Court in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Challenge to Circulars The petitioner challenged the validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST and Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST, claiming they were ultra vires the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the SCN proceedings were being adjudicated by an authority not designated as the proper officer. However, the respondents countered that the authority designated as per the Circular dated 05 July 2017 was indeed adjudicating the SCN proceedings. The Court found no merit in the challenge to the Circulars, as the designated authority was properly adjudicating the SCN proceedings. Validity of the Show Cause Notice The petitioner sought relief similar to an order in a previous writ petition (W.P.(C) 14788/2024). However, the Court noted that the previous case involved an individual not named or found in any investigation as an operator of the concerned firms. In contrast, the present petitioner faced specific allegations outlined in the SCN, including involvement in fraudulent activities related to fake firms and IGST refunds. The Court found no grounds to interdict the SCN proceedings based on these serious allegations. Request for Documents The petitioner requested that the respondents supply both relied upon and non-relied upon documents. The judgment does not provide specific details on the Court's reasoning regarding this request, but the dismissal of the writ petition implies that the Court did not find sufficient grounds to grant this relief. Restraint on Coercive Measures The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents from taking coercive measures pursuant to the SCN. Given the Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition, it can be inferred that the Court did not find justification to grant this restraint, likely due to the serious nature of the allegations against the petitioner. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the challenge to the Circulars lacked merit as the proper authority was adjudicating the SCN. It also found no grounds to interdict the SCN proceedings due to the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed, indicating the Court's stance that the procedural and substantive aspects of the SCN and its adjudication were sufficiently met under the law. The judgment underscores the principle that procedural challenges to administrative actions, such as the issuance of SCNs, must be substantiated by clear evidence of procedural or substantive violations of the law. The Court's dismissal of the petition suggests that the legal and factual framework supporting the SCN was adequate, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity in the proceedings.
|
