Assistant Commissioner authorized to issue IGST notices under Section 4 cross-authorization provisions despite jurisdictional challenge

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax's jurisdiction under the IGST Act. The petitioner argued the officer lacked authority to issue tax and penalty notices, citing absence of specific government notifications delineating jurisdictions. The petitioner also claimed status as deemed owner of detained goods under CGST Act as consignee. The Court upheld cross-authorization provisions under Section 4 of IGST Act, finding that notifications appointing proper officers under State Tax Act provided sufficient authorization. The Court ruled that absence of limiting notifications meant State Tax officers were empowered to act under IGST Act, and revenue authority retained prerogative to determine deemed ownership of goods.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of proper officer under IGST Act, cross authorization, authority of officers under State Tax, deemed owner of goods under CGST Act.

In this judgment by the High Court, the primary issue was the jurisdiction and authority of the proper officer under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged an order demanding tax and penalty, arguing that the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax lacked the jurisdiction to issue the notice. The petitioner's advocate highlighted Section 4 of the IGST Act, which authorizes officers appointed under State Goods and Services Tax Act to act as proper officers for the IGST Act, subject to government notifications specifying exceptions and conditions. The petitioner contended that the lack of subsequent notifications delineating jurisdictions and functions created confusion and hardship for dealers.

The petitioner further argued that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs circular clarified that either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed the owner of detained goods under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, with the petitioner being the consignee and thus the deemed owner. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the Opposite Parties pointed to notifications authorizing proper officers under the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, asserting that these notifications, when read together, provided clear authorization and left no room for the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge. The petitioner contested that these notifications were issued by the State authority and not under the IGST Act.

The Court analyzed the cross authorization provision in Section 4 of the IGST Act, noting that notifications had been issued for the appointment of proper officers under State Tax with assigned powers and duties. The Court emphasized that the lack of notifications limiting the authority of cross-authorized officers meant that officers of State Tax were empowered to act under the IGST Act. Additionally, the Court addressed the petitioner's argument of being deemed the owner of the consignment under a circular, highlighting that the prerogative to deem ownership rested with the revenue authority. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order demanding tax and penalty.

---