9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ES for NANAVATIASSOCIATES (1375) For The Respondent (s) : MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The writ-applicant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The writ-applicant seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the show-cause notice, purported to have been issued by the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, Petroleum 1 and 2, Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner in the Board;" 4. Thereafter, our attention was drawn to Section 3 of the GST Act, 2017. Section 3 clarifies who would be the officers under the Act. Section 3 reads thus : "3. The Government shall, by notification, appoint the following classes of officers for the purposes of this Act, namely:- (a) Principal Chief Commissioners of Central Tax or Principal Directors General of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions of this Act. 6. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that, till this date the Government has not issued any notification for appointing any of the officers enumerated from clauses (a) to (g) of Section 3, except the Commissioner of State Tax Act. 7. Mr.Joshi also invited the attention of this Court to Section 5, which is in respect of the powers of the officers. Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral tax." 8. In short, the submission canvassed is that in the absence of any specific notification issued by the State Government appointing the Dy. Commissioner of State Tax, he could not have issued the show-cause notice under Section 74 of the Act, 2017. 9. The second submission of Mr. Joshi is that the show-cause notice under challenge is also contrary to the judgment of this Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
