Officer competence under CGST upheld where the communication was only an intimation preceding possible show-cause action.

Competence of the issuing officer under the CGST framework was upheld where the impugned communication was issued by an Additional Director treated as equivalent to an Assistant Commissioner. The circular referred to in the record assigned the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner as the proper officer for action under Section 74(5), the Superintendent for Section 73(5), and also permitted DGGI officers to issue show-cause notices, with adjudication to be taken up by the competent central tax officer. The communication was described as only an intimation to pay the indicated amount, failing which a show-cause notice under Section 74(1) could follow. No ground for interference was found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned communication was liable to be interfered with on the ground that it was issued by an officer lacking competence under the CGST framework.

Analysis: The circular relied upon by the petitioner assigned the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner as the proper officer under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Superintendent under Section 73(5) of that Act. The communication was issued by the Additional Director, who was treated as equivalent to an Assistant Commissioner. The circular further permitted officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence to issue show-cause notices, with adjudication to follow by the competent central tax officer. The Court also noted that the impugned communication was only an intimation to pay the indicated amount, with the consequence of a show-cause notice under Section 74(1) if unpaid.

Conclusion: The officer who issued the communication was held to be competent, and no ground for interference was found.

---