2025 (4) TMI 495 - HC - GST

Petition by retired All-India Service officer over GST Tribunal eligibility relaxation under Section 110(d) CGST Act dismissed

HC dismissed the petition challenging the notification relaxing eligibility criteria for appointment of Technical Member (State) to the GST Tribunal. It ... Constitution of GST Tribunal - eligibility criteria for the appointment of Technical Members (State) - Seeking quashing of N/N. EXN-F(10)-42/2017-Vol.-II dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent No. 1 as being premature and ultra vires of the CGST Act, 2017 since Group ‘A’ officers are available in the State of Himachal Pradesh - petitioner, a retired IAS officer, is eligible for the post of Technical Member (State) based on his qualifications and experience - justification for relaxation of criteria - HELD THAT:- A combine reading of sub-section (d) of Section 110 and the proviso appended thereto clearly draws out a distinction between “Officers of the State Government” and “Officers of the All-India Service”. The proviso clearly provides that such relaxation of the requirement of completion of 25 years of service in Group ‘A’ or equivalent is only available in respect of the officers of such State, who have not completed 25 years of service in Group ‘A’ or equivalent but have completed 25 years of service in the Government. This proviso is not at all applicable to the “officers of the All-India Service”. Now adverting to the grounds of the petitioner stating that the impugned notification, corrigendum and circular enabling relaxation under the proviso of Section 110(d) is ultra vires, we simply find no force in such contention, as the contention of the petitioner is based on complete misreading of Section 110(d), when he strongly urges that the recruitment rules could have only been relaxed when officers possessing 25 years of service in Group ‘A’ or equivalent was not available and since the petitioner was available such relaxation could not have been conferred. This proviso regarding relaxation is only available to the officers of the State Government falling in Group ‘A’ and not to the officers of All- India Service. Therefore, it is irrelevant and rather inconsequential that since the officer is available from All-India Service, the relaxation cannot be made qua the category of the officers belonging to the State. Adverting to the contention of the petitioner that the notification altering eligibility criteria is without proper reasoning and adherence to statutory provisions and appears to be designed to favour a specific group. This contention too is not tenable because identical relaxation, has already been granted to the officers of the State Governments in ten other States. Conclusion - The relaxation of eligibility criteria under Section 110(d) is permissible when no eligible State officers are available, and such relaxation does not extend to All-India Service officers. There is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal questions considered in this judgment are:1. Whether the notification dated 19.10.2024 and the corrigendum dated 21.11.2024, which relaxed the eligibility criteria for the appointment of Technical Members (State) under the CGST Act, 2017, are ultra vires.2. Whether the petitioner, a retired IAS officer, is eligible for the post of Technical Member (State) based on his qualifications and experience, and whether the relaxation of criteria was justified.3. Whether the relaxation of eligibility criteria dilutes the selection process and is designed to favor a specific group.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Validity of the Notification and CorrigendumRelevant legal framework and precedents: The relevant legal provision is Section 110(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, which outlines the qualifications for a Technical Member (State). The proviso allows the State Government, on the recommendation of the GST Council, to relax the requirement of 25 years of service in Group 'A' or equivalent if no eligible officer is available.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interpreted Section 110(d) and its proviso as permitting the relaxation of the eligibility criteria for State officers when no suitable candidates with 25 years of Group 'A' service are available. The Court emphasized that this relaxation is not applicable to officers of the All-India Service.Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the GST Council had approved the relaxation based on the State Government's recommendation due to the absence of eligible candidates with the required service in Group 'A'.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the proviso of Section 110(d) to justify the relaxation, as the petitioner, being an All-India Service officer, was not affected by this provision.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the relaxation was ultra vires and unnecessary, given his availability. The Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that the relaxation applies only to State Government officers, not All-India Service officers.Conclusions: The Court found the notification and corrigendum to be valid and consistent with the CGST Act's provisions.2. Eligibility of the PetitionerRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 110(d) of the CGST Act sets the qualifications for Technical Members, including a requirement for 25 years of service in Group 'A' or equivalent.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner, as an All-India Service officer, does not fall under the category affected by the relaxation in the proviso to Section 110(d).Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's qualifications and service history were acknowledged, but the Court emphasized the distinction between State and All-India Service officers.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the statutory provisions to determine that the petitioner's eligibility was not impacted by the relaxation, which was specific to State officers.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's claim of eligibility based on his qualifications was acknowledged, but the Court clarified that the relaxation was not applicable to him.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the petitioner's eligibility was not relevant to the validity of the relaxation granted to State officers.3. Alleged Dilution of Selection CriteriaRelevant legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to the GST Council's deliberations and the need for flexibility in states where eligible candidates were not available.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the relaxation was a considered decision by the GST Council to ensure that states could appoint competent officers as Technical Members.Key evidence and findings: The Court cited the GST Council's 49th meeting, which discussed the need for flexibility in eligibility criteria to accommodate state-specific circumstances.Application of law to facts: The Court applied the Council's recommendations and the statutory provisions to uphold the relaxation.Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's argument that the relaxation favored a specific group was dismissed, as similar relaxations were granted in other states.Conclusions: The Court concluded that the relaxation did not unduly dilute the selection criteria and was justified by practical considerations.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the notification and corrigendum were valid exercises of power under the CGST Act, 2017, and were not ultra vires. It emphasized the distinction between State Government officers and All-India Service officers concerning eligibility criteria. The Court preserved the integrity of the selection process by ensuring that the relaxation was based on genuine administrative needs and was consistent with the GST Council's recommendations.Core principles established: The judgment established that the relaxation of eligibility criteria under Section 110(d) is permissible when no eligible State officers are available, and such relaxation does not extend to All-India Service officers. It also reinforced the GST Council's role in ensuring that flexibility in criteria does not compromise the quality of appointments.Final determinations on each issue: The petition was dismissed, with the Court upholding the validity of the notification and corrigendum, affirming the petitioner's ineligibility under the relaxed criteria, and rejecting claims of undue dilution in the selection process.