9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 232 - HC - GSTJurisdiction - proper officer in terms of Section 4 of the IGST to act under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (IGST) without a specific notification from the Government of India - HELD THAT - A division bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack interpreting Section 4 of the IGST in the case of Narayan Sahu vs. Union of India and Others 2024 (12) TMI 870 - ORISSA HIGH COURT holds that Section 4 of the IGST authorizes cross empowerment inter alia of the officers under the State Tax Act or the Central Tax Act. A division bench of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Pinnacle Vehicles And Services Private Limited v. Joint Commissioner 2025 (1) TMI 838 - KERALA HIGH COURT has held Section 6 (1) of the CGST cross empowers the officer of the State GST Act or Union Territory GST Act to function as the proper officers under the CGST. The fourth respondent who is an authorized officer under Section 6 of the KGST is declared to be the proper officer under Section 4 of the IGST. Whether the petition could be entertained before this Court or the petitioner should be left to avail the statutory remedy available under Section 107 of the KGST? - HELD THAT - While hearing a challenge to the confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the CGST the Apex Court in the case of Falcon Enterprises Vs. State Of Gujarat 2021 (6) TMI 518 - SC ORDER holds that such orders can only be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 107 of CGST. The Apex Court in the case of Commr. Of State Tax V. Commercial Steel Ltd. 2021 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT while deciding the issue of maintainability of a writ petition challenging an order of detention passed under Section 129 (3) of the CGST r/w Section 20 of the IGST holds that the such orders should be challenged by way of the statutory remedy of appeal provided under Section 107 of CGST and the Writ Petition is only maintainable in certain circumstances. The Division Bench in the case of Kesar Farm V. Addl. Commissioner 2019 (12) TMI 1083 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT holds that the non-obstante clauses in Sections 129 and 130 of CGST will not affect the remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST and Section 121 of the CGST does not specifically state that orders under Section 129 and 130 of the CGST are not appealable. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Rajalakshmi Enterprises V. Additional Chief Secretary To Government Finance Department 2020 (12) TMI 93 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT following the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of KESAR FARM holds that confiscation orders passed under Section 130 of the KGST Act and CGST Act r/w the IGST Act can only be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. In the case at hand the order of confiscation is passed under Section 130 of the KGST supra exercising power under the IGST. The issue with regard to jurisdiction is answered in favour of the Revenue holding that the Officer appointed under Section 6 of the KGST is a proper officer under Section 4 of the IGST. On the same reason the appeal against an order of confiscation by an officer under Section 130 of the KGST would undoubtedly be maintainable under Section 107 of the KGST or Section 20 of the IGST as the case would be. Conclusion - The fourth respondent is a proper officer under the IGST. The petitioner is directed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the KGST. The petition before this Court is not entertainable in the light of existence of an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the KGST r/w Section 20 of the IGST. Petitioner is granted 4 weeks time to file an appeal - Petition disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issue in this case was whether the fourth respondent, a Commercial Tax Officer under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (KGST), was the proper officer to act under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST) without a specific notification from the Government of India. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent to pass orders related to the confiscation of goods under the IGST framework. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of Section 4 of the IGST, which deals with the authorization of officers from State Tax or Union Territory Tax as proper officers for the purposes of the IGST. This section mandates that such authorization is subject to exceptions and conditions specified by the government through notification. The petitioner argued that in the absence of such a notification, the fourth respondent lacked jurisdiction. The Court examined precedents from various High Courts, including the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, and Orissa High Court, which interpreted Section 4 of the IGST as allowing cross-empowerment of State Tax officers to act under the IGST without requiring a separate notification unless exceptions were to be carved out. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that Section 4 of the IGST inherently allows for cross-empowerment of officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act (SGST) to act as proper officers under the IGST. This cross-empowerment does not require a separate notification unless the government intends to specify exceptions. The Court found that the absence of a notification did not invalidate the jurisdiction of the fourth respondent under the IGST. Key evidence and findings: The Court relied on the statutory provisions of the CGST, KGST, and IGST Acts, along with interpretations from other High Courts, to conclude that the fourth respondent was indeed a proper officer under the IGST framework. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under Section 107 of the KGST for challenging the confiscation order. Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal principles of cross-empowerment under Section 4 of the IGST to the facts of the case, determining that the fourth respondent, authorized under Section 6 of the KGST, was indeed a proper officer under the IGST. The Court reasoned that the absence of a specific notification did not negate the cross-empowerment provided by the statute. Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the absence of a notification under Section 4 of the IGST rendered the fourth respondent's actions without jurisdiction. The respondents countered that cross-empowerment under the CGST and KGST sufficed for the IGST. The Court sided with the respondents, citing the statutory framework and judicial precedents supporting the cross-empowerment of State officers under the IGST. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the fourth respondent was a proper officer under the IGST and that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the KGST. Consequently, the petition was not maintainable, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appellate remedy. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "Section 4 of the IGST generates cross empowerment to become a proper officer, upon an officer who is appointed under Section 6 of the CGST or KGST." Core principles established: The Court established that cross-empowerment under Section 4 of the IGST does not require a separate notification unless exceptions are intended. Officers appointed under the SGST or CGST are inherently empowered to act under the IGST framework. Final determinations on each issue: The Court determined that the fourth respondent was a proper officer under the IGST, and the petitioner's challenge on jurisdictional grounds was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the KGST.
|
