Presumption of constitutionality of CGST circular and assignment of functions under Section 168; validity upheld, summons rescheduled.

A presumption of constitutionality was applied to subordinate CGST directions, holding that Section 168 empowers the Board to issue orders and instructions to Central Tax Officers and that assignment of functions may be made on a proposal routed through the Commissioner in the Board and approved by the Board. The impugned circular dated 5 July 2017 was held valid on that basis. Separately, the court allowed a limited remedy by rescheduling compliance with a summons to a new date and directed the competent officer to proceed according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 was issued without authority and therefore liable to be quashed; (ii) Whether the summon dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act based on the circular is enforceable and whether the returnable date requires rescheduling.

Issue (i): Validity of Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 and whether the Board had authority to assign functions to officers as "proper officers" under the CGST Act.

Analysis: The impugned circular on its face assigns functions to officers as proper officers. Section 168(1) empowers the Board to issue instructions for uniform implementation, and Section 168(2) contemplates that certain actions by a Commissioner in the Board are to be exercised with the approval of the Board. The Commissioner is part of the Board and the presumption of regularity and validity of subordinate administrative actions applies. The petitioner bears the burden of proving lack of authority or approval for the circular, which was not discharged on the record.

Conclusion: The challenge to Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 fails; the circular is not quashed.

Issue (ii): Validity and enforceability of the summon dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act and the appropriateness of the scheduled returnable date.

Analysis: The summon derives its force from the operative administrative framework, which the Court has not invalidated. However, procedural fairness in respect of the returnable date is implicated because the summons was served after the date fixed for appearance. The respondent conceded that the date can be rescheduled and offered to permit appearance on an alternative date, and the Court found it appropriate to accommodate a rescheduled date for compliance.

Conclusion: The summon remains operative but the returnable date is rescheduled; the petitioner is permitted to appear on 23rd March, 2026 before the competent officer, who shall proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petition is partly allowed only to the extent of rescheduling the returnable date of the summon; the substantive challenge to the impugned circular is dismissed, leaving the administrative framework and summons intact for enforcement subject to the rescheduled compliance date.

Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate administrative circular is presumed valid and the burden lies on the challenger to prove lack of authority or approval; absent discharge of that burden, courts will not strike down an administrative circular and may grant only procedural relief such as rescheduling of a returnable date.

---