GST jurisdiction depends on valid officer authorisation; an order passed without it was quashed despite alternate remedy.

An order passed under the GST framework was held unsustainable because the officer lacked lawful competence to act as a proper officer in the absence of the required Council recommendation and notification-based authorisation. The High Court treated the defect as one of jurisdiction, not mere procedure, and held that the availability of an alternate appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the challenge was to an order passed wholly without authority. The impugned order was therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order was liable to be quashed for want of competence of the officer passing it under the GST statutory scheme.

Analysis: The statutory framework requires a function under the GST enactment to be performed by the Commissioner or an officer of the relevant tax administration duly assigned that function. Under the provision authorising State tax or Union territory tax officers to act as proper officers, such authorisation depends upon the prescribed conditions and notification issued on the basis of the Council's recommendation. On the admitted position that no such recommendation existed for the respondent officer, the order could not be sustained as one passed by a duly competent authority. The existence of an alternate appellate remedy did not bar writ relief where the order was challenged as wholly without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed as having been passed by an incompetent authority, and the petitioner succeeded.

---