TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 385
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 70 of the CGST Act. ii) Your lordship may please to stay the operation of summon dated 03.11.2025 issued by Respondent." 4. The facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as under: a. In an inquiry in connection with M/s Midas Marketing Inc., the petitioner was served with a summon dated 03rd November, 2025, issued under Section 70 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short, "CGST Act"), by Respondent No.3/Superintendent/Appraiser/Senior Intelligence Officer, Office of the Commissioner of Central Taxes. The said summon was issued by the said officer based on the circular dated 5th July, 2017, issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of the powers vested, as mentioned therein. b. Vide said summon, petitioner was called upon to remain present for tendering voluntary statement, production of Bank Statement and Sales invoice and ledger in relation to M/s Midas Marketing Inc. c. Vide the said circular, issued by the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (91) of Section 2 of the CGST Act; Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; and subject to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As such, according to him, the respondent needs to be directed to reconsider the date of appearance of the petitioner and the respondent be restrained from passing any adverse order without hearing the petitioner. 9. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is no quarrel with the rescheduling of the date of appearance, provided in the summons. According to her, this Court, as per the convenience of the petitioner, can direct the appearance of the petitioner on any date and it is only subsequent thereto that the appropriate proceedings will be taken to their logical end. 10. According to her, if we see the provisions of Section 168, a plain reading of the said section contemplates that sub-section (1) empowers the Board, for achieving the purpose and uniformity in the implementation of the Act, to issue such orders, instructions, or directions to the Central Tax Officers as it may deem fit. Thereupon, such officers and all other persons employed in the implementation of the Act are required to observe and follow such orders, instructions, or directions. 11. Further, she submitted that even if the impugned circular is perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 151, clause (1) of sub-section (3) of section 158 and section 167 shall mean a Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board and such Commissioner or Joint Secretary shall exercise the powers specified in the said sections with the approval of the Board." 14. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon sub-section (2) of Section 168 of the CGST Act so as to substantiate his contention that it is the Commissioner in the Board, who is required to route the proposal and the same is required to be approved by the Board, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 168 of the CGST Act, in the matter of assigning functions by the Commissioner in the Board. 15. As far as the circular under challenge is concerned, the prima facie reading of the same indicates that the words employed therein are that the Board is assigning the officers mentioned in column 2 of the table to exercise the functions as proper officers in relation to the various sections of the CGST Act and the rules framed thereunder. 16. The fact remains that it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is also a part of the Board. Once it is not in dispute that the Commissioner is par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. In other words, there is a presumption that the decision or executive order is properly and validly made, a presumption expressed in the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta which means 'all things are presumed to be done in due form." 20. Furthermore, a reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6, wherein it was held as under: "18. .......We are not of opinion that they do not. It is not for us to say on this application and we do not in fact say or even suggest that the allegations about the petitioners and their concerns are at all well founded. It is sufficient for our present purpose to say that the facts disclosed on the face of the notification itself and the facts which have been brought to our notice by the affidavits afford sufficient support to the presumption of constitutionality of the notification. There being thus a presumption of validity in favour of the Act and the notification, it is for the petitioners to allege and prove beyond doubt that other persons or companies similarly situate have been left out and the petitioners and their companies have been singled out f....