GST jurisdiction and procedural defect protection upheld where the same proper officer issued notice and penalty order.

Jurisdiction to issue the GST show cause notice and impose penalty was upheld because the same proper officer initiated and concluded the proceedings, and the officer was already competent to act under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The court also noted that the circular relied upon had come into force before the order-in-original was passed. The challenge was further weakened by the absence of any jurisdictional objection before the authority, and by Section 160 of the CGST Act, which protects proceedings from invalidation for defect or omission when they are otherwise in substance and effect compliant with the statute. The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the penalty order was held valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Joint Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and pass the order imposing penalty under the GST enactments in the light of Circular No. 254/11/2025-GST dated 27.10.2025.

Analysis: The proceedings were initiated and culminated in the order by the same proper officer. The Court noted that the officer was already competent to initiate proceedings under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and that, by the time the order-in-original was passed, the circular relied upon had come into force. The challenge was also weakened because the notice was acted upon, no jurisdictional objection was taken before the authority, and Section 160 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 protects proceedings from invalidation merely on account of defect or omission when they are otherwise in substance and effect in conformity with the statute.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rejected and the impugned penalty order was held to be valid.

---