TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction as a proper officer to issue notice, conduct proceedings, and pass an order under section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguishes between the Commissioner and other officers of State tax. The Commissioner is the proper officer under the Act, and under section 5(3) the Commissioner may delegate powers to a subordinate officer. Sections 3 and 4 recognise the classes of officers and their jurisdiction, while section 2(91) defines a proper officer as the Commissioner or an officer of State tax assigned that function by the Commissioner. The Office Orders issued by the Commissioner were treated as valid assignment of function and jurisdiction to the Deputy Commissioner. The Court held that section 6, which deals with officers appointed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, did not govern the case of a State tax officer. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished because they concerned officers under a different statutory scheme where no valid entrustment of functions had been shown.
Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner was validly empowered to act as the proper officer under section 74, and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a State tax officer can validly act as the proper officer where the Commissioner has assigned the function under the statutory delegation power; the separate regime governing Central tax officers does not apply.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
