9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1197 - HC - GSTProper officer - Validity of issue of Authorization for access to Business premises issued under Section 71(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - contrary to Sub-Section 91 of Section 2 read with Section 5(1) and 5(3) of the APGST Act or not - whether the authorization given to the second respondent herein by the Joint Commissioner is valid in law? - HELD THAT - A reading of Section 71(1) of the APGST Act, clearly demonstrate that any Officer under this Act, authorized by a Proper Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner shall have access to place of any business of registered person to inspect the books of accounts, documents - The Proper Officer referred to in Section 71(1) of the Act would mean the Chief Commissioner or the Officer of the State who is assigned that function by the Chief Commissioner as defined in Section 2(91) of APGST Act. It is very much evident that the Proper Officer for the functions referred to Section 71(1) of the Act, would be the three officers referred to in the column designation of officer authorized and one such Officer being Joint Commissioner (ST) working in the Division - In the instant case, as seen from the impugned proceedings, the authorization for access to business purpose under Section 71(1) of APGST Act was issued by Joint Commissioner (ST). Hence, the argument though appeared to be impressive at the first stage, but on a close perusal of the Notification issued, proved to be incorrect. Therefore, the authorization given by the Joint Commissioner pursuant to the Gazette Notification issued by the Chief Commissioner authorizing certain categories of persons cannot be found fault with. It is also to be noted here that the authorization by the Chief Commissioner came to be issued in terms of Section 2(91) of the Act which categorically states that the Proper Officer would mean not only the Chief Commissioner but also Officer of the State Tax, who is assigned that function by the Chief Commissioner - there are no grounds to grant the relief sought for by the petitioner, namely, to quash the proceeding issued by Joint Commissioner authorizing the Assistant Commissioner (ST) to conduct inspection/search etc. of the premises of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to the authorization for access to business premises under Section 71(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on the interpretation of Sub-Section 91 of Section 2 read with Section 5(1) and 5(3) of the APGST Act. Analysis: 1. Facts of the Case: - The petitioner, a Special Class Contractor, registered under the RWS & Engineering Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, was selected for audit by the Central GST Audit Circle, Nellore. - The authorities visited the petitioner's business premises, obtained copies of files, and issued an authorization under Section 71(1) of the APGST Act for inspection based on information from the second respondent. 2. Counter by Respondents: - The first respondent disputed the petitioner's claims, stating that the authorization was issued following proper procedures and based on a report submitted by the second respondent. - Respondents contended that the Chief Commissioner's authorization can be further delegated to officers subordinate to him, contrary to the petitioner's argument. 3. Legal Provisions: - Section 2(91) defines 'Proper Officer,' Section 5 outlines the powers of officers, and Section 71(1) grants access to business premises for inspection. - A Gazette Notification specified the officers authorized for functions under Section 71(1) of the APGST Act. 4. Court's Analysis: - The Court interpreted the relevant legal provisions and the Gazette Notification to determine the validity of the authorization issued by the Joint Commissioner. - The Proper Officer for functions under Section 71(1) was identified as the Joint Commissioner, as per the Gazette Notification, making the authorization valid. - The Court concluded that the Chief Commissioner's authorization under Section 2(91) extends to officers assigned functions, including the Joint Commissioner. - Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the authorization and ruled in favor of the respondents. 5. Conclusion: - The Court found no grounds to grant relief to the petitioner, upholding the validity of the authorization for inspection granted by the Joint Commissioner. - The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded, with pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed.
|
