9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erformed under the CGST Act as contemplated under Section 2(91), and as such, was entitled to issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act in connection with the inquiry initiated against the petitioner. In the instant case, the Board has assigned the officers to perform the function as proper officers in relation to various Sections of CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder by issuing the Circular in question, the question of issuing Notification for delegation of powers by the Commissioner as contemplated under Section 167 of the CGST Act does not arise. Mr.Rastogi appears to have misread the powers of the Board to assign the officers to perform the function as proper officers in relation to the various Sections of the CGST Act, as the delegation of powers by the Commissioner to the other authority or the officer as contemplated in Section 167 of the CGST Act. The Court, therefore, does not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Rastogi that the respondent No.3 was not the proper officer as per the definition contained in Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, and therefore, had no powers to issue summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act. Heavy reliance on the interim order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cences granted in terms of the Scheme set out in Chapter-IV (AA Scheme) of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020. It appears that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit vide the Communication dated 11.11.2020 addressed to the Mumbai Office of the petitioner No.1, had intimated that an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and other importers, who had incorrectly availed the benefits of EOU Scheme extra in terms of the Customs Notification Nos.78/2017-Cus, 79/2017-Cus, and 48/2017-Cus respectively, and also simultaneously availed the benefit of refund of duty paid on the goods exported towards fulfillment of the export obligation. Being aggrieved by the said communication the petitioner had preferred a writ petition bearing No.WP(L) No.8839 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court in which the Bombay High Court, vide the order dated 8.1.2021 issued the notice to the concerned respondents. 3. As per the further case of the petitioners, the manufacturing unit of the petitioners at Vapi was visited by the officers of the respondent No.3 on 9.2.2021 in connection with the said inquiry and during the said visit, a sum of ₹ 3 crore was recovered from the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said arguments, Mr.Rastogi submitted that since the respondent No.3 did not hold the designation of the Commissioner, the specific function under Section 70 has to be assigned to him by a Commissioner in the Board as contemplated under Section 2(91) and such assignment has to be through the medium of Notification in the light of Section 167 of the CGST Act. 5. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Canon India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 200, Mr.Rastogi submitted that the entrustment of functions is a vital ingredient in the proper exercise of the powers by an authority. The respondent No.3, in the instant case, having wrongly assumed the jurisdiction by virtue of Circular dated 5.7.2017 to issue the summons the same is without jurisdiction. 6. Assailing the impugned Circular dated 5.7.2017, Mr.Rastogi submitted that Section 2(91) is merely a definition clause, which does not confer any powers to assign the functions. The said Circular also makes reference to Section 20 of the IGST, which merely incorporates by reference, certain provisions of the CGST Act and makes them applicable to the IGST Act. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contained in Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, which reads as under:- Section 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (91) Proper Officer in relation to any function to be performed under this Act, means the Commissioner or the officer of the Central Tax who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board. 9. Section 70 empowers the proper officer under the Act to summon any person to give evidence and produce documents in connection with the inquiry initiated against him and the said proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 228 of IPC. Section 70 reads as under:- 70. Power to summon person to give evidence and produce documents.- (1) The proper officer under this Act shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing in any inquiry in the same manner, as provided in the case of a Civil Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). (2) Every such inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceedings within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the representation, if any, made by the person chargeable with tax, determine the amount of tax, interest and penalty due from such person and issue an order. (10) The proper officer shall issue the order under subsection (9) within a period of five years from the due date for furnishing of annual return for the financial year to which the tax not paid or short paid or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized relates to or within five years from the date of erroneous refund. 11. Since the learned Advocate Mr.Rastogi has placed heavy reliance on Section 167 pertaining to the delegation of powers by the Commission is reproduced as under:- 167. Delegation of Powers.- The Commissioner may, by notification, direct that subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the notification, any power exercisable by any authority or officer under this Act may be exercisable also by another authority or officer as may be specified in such notification. 12. Since the impugned Circular dated 5.7.2017 has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(91) of CGST Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act, it may be noted that Section 20 of the IG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 2(91) is concerned, it pertains to the proper officer in relation to any function to be performed under the CGST Act to be the Commissioner or the officer of Central Tax, who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board. Here the Board means the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as defined in Section 2(16) of the CGST Act. Vide the Circular dated 5.7.2017 the said Board namely the Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2(91) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act and subject to Section 5(2) of the CGST Act has assigned the officers the functions as that of proper officers in relation to the various Sections of the CGST Act and the Rules made thereunder, and as such the Superintendent of Central Tax has been assigned the function of Section 70(1) of the CGST Act. Thus, there being no delegation of powers by the Commissioner, the provisions contained in Section 167 of the CGST Act could not be said to have been attracted, nor was there any necessity to issue Notification as sought to be submitted by Mr.Rastogi. There could not be any disagreement to the proposition of law laid down by the Supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. 16. It may be noted that in the writ petition filed by the Bombay office of the petitioner before the Bombay High Court challenging the communication dated 11.11.2020 issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit, there is no interim order passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondent authorities from proceeding further with the inquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 17. As regards the payment of ₹ 3 crore made by the petitioners on 9.2.2021 vide Form GST DRC-03 under Rule 142(2) and 142(3) of the GST Rules (Annexure-F), it may be noted that for the particulars at Sr. No.3 i.e. cause of payment , it is shown as voluntary and at Sr.4 i.e. section under which voluntary payment is made , it is shown as Section 74(5) . At the bottom of the table in the said Form, at Sr. No.8 with regard to reasons , it has been mentioned that enquiry in connection with the incorrect claim of double benefit, that is exemption of IGST, Advance Authorization and Refund of IGST: under protest . Relying upon the said endorsement under protest the learned Advocate Mr.Rastogi submitted that the said payment was made by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
