Lovelesh Singhal Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The proceedings arose from a challenge to Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 5 July 2017, issued in relation to assignment of functions to officers as “proper officers” under the CGST Act, 2017, and a summons dated 3 November 2025 under Section 70 of the CGST Act issued to the petitioner in an inquiry concerning M/s Midas Marketing Inc. The summons required the petitioner to appear for tendering a voluntary statement and producing bank statements, sales invoices and ledger relating to M/s Midas Marketing Inc.
Before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner sought quashing of the circular and summons and a stay of the summons. The principal challenge to the circular was based on Sections 2(16), 2(25), 2(91) and 168 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that the Board lacked authority to assign functions to proper officers and that such authority vested in the “Commissioner in the Board”. It was argued that the circular was therefore without authority of law and that the officer concerned was not empowered to issue the summons under Section 70. The petitioner also relied upon interim orders of the Rajasthan High Court in M/s. ACME Cleantech Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., and separately contended that the summons was served after the scheduled date of appearance.
The respondents submitted that Section 168(1) empowered the Board to issue orders, instructions or directions to Central Tax Officers for uniformity in implementation of the CGST Act. It was further submitted that the impugned circular was issued under the signature of the Commissioner, GST, indicating that the Commissioner in the Board had acted under Section 168(2) with the Board’s approval. The respondents did not oppose rescheduling the petitioner’s appearance.
The High Court reproduced the relevant statutory provisions. Section 2(91) defines “proper officer” as the Commissioner or Central Tax Officer assigned the relevant function by the Commissioner in the Board. Section 2(16) defines the “Board”, while Section 2(25) defines “Commissioner in the Board”. Section 168(1) authorises the Board to issue orders, instructions or directions to Central Tax Officers, while Section 168(2) provides for exercise of specified powers by the Commissioner or Joint Secretary posted in the Board with the Board’s approval.
The High Court observed that the circular’s language stated that the Board was assigning officers the functions of proper officers. However, the Court noted that the Commissioner was also part of the Board and that Section 168(2) contemplated assignment of functions upon a proposal of the Commissioner in the Board. The Court found no reason to disbelieve that the circular had been issued under the Commissioner’s authority and approved by the Board. It applied the principle that subordinate legislation carries a presumption of validity and that the burden rests upon the person challenging it to establish invalidity. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy, M.(Operations) S.B.I. & Anr vs R. Periyasamy and Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar, the High Court held that the petitioner had not discharged that burden. The challenge to the 5 July 2017 circular consequently failed.
Regarding the summons, the High Court permitted the petitioner to appear before the competent officer on 23 March 2026, instead of the earlier scheduled date, with the competent officer thereafter to deal with the matter in accordance with law. The writ petition was therefore partly allowed only to the extent of rescheduling the appearance, while the challenge to the circular was dismissed.
The petitioner thereafter approached the Supreme Court. After hearing the petitioner’s Senior Counsel, the Supreme Court found no good ground to interfere with the judgment/orders of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of. Thus, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision, leaving intact the High Court’s rejection of the challenge to the circular and its direction rescheduling the petitioner’s appearance.
Cases Discussed
- M.(Operations) S.B.I. & Anr vs R. Periyasamy (Supreme Court), Civil Appeal No. 10942/2014
- State of Tamil Nadu v. P. Krishnamurthy (Supreme Court), (2006) 4 SCC 517
- Ram Krishna Dalmia v. S.R. Tendolkar (Supreme Court), 1958 SCC OnLine SC 6
- M/s. ACME Cleantech Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court), Civil Writ Petition No. 11503/2025
Read Delhi HC Judgment in this case: Lovelesh Singhal Vs Central Borad of Indirect Taxes & Customs (Delhi High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Having heard Mr. Virender Ganda, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner(s), we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment/order(s) passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
2. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.
