Validity of Central Government Gazette Notification and Appointment of Proper Officers for Tax Administration

The Court upheld the validity of Annexure P/2 Gazette Notification dated 01.07.2017, clarifying it was issued by the Central Government. It also deemed the appointment of Proper Officers via Annexure P/1 Circular valid, stating it was an assignment of functions not requiring a gazette notification. The Court ruled that the appointment of multiple Proper Officers across India was constitutional and necessary for effective tax administration, dismissing the review petitions due to no apparent error on record and emphasizing review power limitations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Sustainability of Annexure P/2 Gazette Notification dated 01.07.2017.
2. Validity of Annexure P/1 Circular dated 05.07.2017 regarding appointment of Proper Officers.
3. Plurality of Proper Officers appointed throughout India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sustainability of Annexure P/2 Gazette Notification dated 01.07.2017:
The Petitioners challenged the Annexure P/2 Gazette Notification dated 01.07.2017, arguing it was not issued by the Central Government but by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The Court noted that a corrigendum notification dated 29.07.2019 corrected the mistake, clarifying that the notification was indeed issued by the Central Government, thus answering this question against the Petitioners. The Court found no error in the corrigendum and upheld the notification's validity.

2. Validity of Annexure P/1 Circular dated 05.07.2017 regarding appointment of Proper Officers:
The Petitioners contended that the appointment of Proper Officers via Annexure P/1 Circular without a gazette notification violated Sections 167 and 168 of the CGST Act. The Court observed that Section 167 requires a gazette notification only for delegation of power to external entities, not for assigning functions to existing officers. The Court upheld the Respondents' argument that Annexure P/1 Circular was an assignment of functions within the scope of Section 168, not a delegation of power, and thus did not require a gazette notification.

3. Plurality of Proper Officers appointed throughout India:
The Petitioners argued that the CGST Act does not permit the appointment of multiple Proper Officers across India, asserting that this practice leads to harassment and violates the statutory scheme of 'one assessee, one subject matter, one Proper Officer.' The Court found that the necessity to appoint multiple Proper Officers was justified to address issues like issuance of fake bills and tax evasion. The Court upheld the Respondents' contention that Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act pertains to assessment and does not restrict the appointment of multiple Proper Officers for enforcement purposes. The Court ruled that the appointment of multiple Proper Officers was constitutional and necessary for effective tax administration.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the review petitions, concluding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that the review power is not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used for re-hearing the matter. The Court also noted that the Petitioners' failure to bring the corrigendum notification to the Court's notice earlier had already wasted significant judicial time. Consequently, the review petitions were dismissed without imposing costs on the Petitioners.

---