Board's power to assign DGGSTI as proper officers under CGST Act ss.2(91), 70, 74(5) upheld; writ dismissed

HC upheld the validity of N/N. 14/2017-Central Tax and Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST, holding that the Board was competent to assign powers to DGGSTI officers and that any misdescription of the source of power does not vitiate the notification if the authority is substantively empowered. It held that the concerned officers qualify as "proper officers" under s.2(91) CGST Act and were lawfully entitled to issue summons under s.70 and to authorize inspection/search. Payments made by petitioner under s.74(5) are to be dealt with in accordance with s.74 and relevant rules. Finding no illegality, HC dismissed the writ petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax dated 01.07.2017.
2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence.
3. Issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017.
4. Allegation of coercion in the deposit of Rs. 40 Lakhs.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notification No. 14/2017-Central Tax dated 01.07.2017:
The petitioner challenged the notification on the grounds that it was ultra vires to the power of the Central Government. The court examined the notification and corrigendum dated 29.07.2019, which substituted "the Central Board of Excise and Customs" with "the Government." The court held that Section 3 of the CGST Act, 2017 empowers the Government to appoint officers for the purposes of the Act. The court found that the notification was valid and not ultra vires, as the Government has the authority to appoint and invest officers with powers under the CGST Act, 2017.

2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Director General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence:
The petitioner argued that the jurisdiction exercised by the Additional Director General in authorizing inspection/search was not legal. The court referred to Section 5 of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows the Board to impose conditions on the exercise of powers by officers. The court concluded that the officers of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGSI) were properly appointed and invested with powers as Central Tax Officers. The court found no merit in the petitioner's argument regarding the jurisdiction.

3. Issuance of summons under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The petitioner contended that the summons issued by the Intelligence Officer were without authority. The court examined Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, which grants the proper officer the power to summon any person to give evidence or produce documents. The court noted that the officers of DGSI were appointed as Central Tax Officers and were assigned the functions of proper officers by the Board. The court held that the summons issued were within the legal authority of the officers.

4. Allegation of coercion in the deposit of Rs. 40 Lakhs:
The petitioner alleged that the deposit of Rs. 40 Lakhs was made under coercion. The court examined the Form GST DRC-03, where the payment was marked as "voluntary" under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017. The court found no evidence of coercion or duress in the payment. The court noted that the petitioner did not file any complaint regarding coercion. The court held that the payment would be dealt with according to the provisions of Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, holding that the notification was valid, the officers had proper jurisdiction, the summons were legally issued, and there was no evidence of coercion in the deposit of Rs. 40 Lakhs. There was no order as to costs.

---