Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers

Jurisdictional Limits on Cross-Empowerment of Officers under GST Acts

Reported as:

2024 (3) TMI 1216 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Here is a detailed article covering all the relevant issues from the judgement:

Introduction

In a significant judgement, the High Court has provided clarity on the jurisdictional limits of officers appointed under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 and the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act. The court examined the provisions related to the appointment, powers, and cross-empowerment of officers under the respective GST Acts and Rules.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners challenged the proceedings initiated against them by the respondent authorities, arguing that the officers who initiated the proceedings lacked jurisdiction as the petitioners were assigned to the counterpart tax authority (Central or State) under the administrative mechanism established by the GST Council.

Discussions and Findings of the Court

Appointment and Powers of Officers

The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the CGST Act and the TNGST Act, which deal with the appointment of officers and their powers. It observed that the Board (under the CGST Act) and the Government/Commissioner (under the TNGST Act) can appoint and delegate powers only to the officers appointed under their respective Acts. There is no provision for cross-empowerment or delegation of powers to officers appointed under the counterpart Act.

Cross-Empowerment u/s 6

Section 6 of the respective GST Acts provides for cross-empowerment of officers, subject to conditions specified by the Government on the recommendations of the GST Council. However, the court noted that no notification has been issued for cross-empowerment, except for the purpose of refund under Chapter XI of the respective GST Acts and Rules.

Administrative Mechanism and Circular No. 01/2017-GST

The court referred to Circular No. 01/2017-GST (Council) dated 20.09.2017, which outlined the administrative mechanism for assigning assessees to the Central or State authorities. It observed that if an assessee has been assigned to the Central Authorities, the State Authorities have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against them in the absence of a notification u/s 6 of the respective GST Acts. Similarly, if an assessee has been assigned to the State Authorities, the officers of the Central GST cannot interfere.

Analysis and Decision by the Court

The court held that the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities against the petitioners were without jurisdiction, as the petitioners were assigned to the counterpart tax authority (Central or State) under the administrative mechanism established by the GST Council.

However, the court acknowledged that there might be a case against the petitioners for the alleged loss of revenue under the respective GST Acts. Therefore, while quashing the impugned proceedings, the court directed the Central Authority/State Authority, to whom the respective petitioners were assigned, to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh against them, strictly following the provisions of the respective GST Acts, Rules, and Circulars.

The court also excluded the time between the initiation of the impugned proceedings and the pendency of the present writ petitions for computing the limitation period.

Comprehensive Summary

The High Court, in this judgement, clarified the jurisdictional limits of officers appointed under the CGST Act and the SGST Act. It held that in the absence of a notification for cross-empowerment u/s 6 of the respective GST Acts, officers cannot initiate proceedings against assessees assigned to the counterpart tax authority (Central or State) under the administrative mechanism established by the GST Council. The court quashed the impugned proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities against the petitioners for lack of jurisdiction but directed the appropriate authorities to initiate fresh proceedings, adhering to the statutory provisions and circulars.

Full Text:

2024 (3) TMI 1216 - MADRAS HIGH COURT