GST Inspection/Search by Assistant Commissioner based on valid authorization by Chief Commissioner is valid

Bommineni Ramanjaneyulu Vs Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (Andhra Pradesh High Court)

Inspection/Search by Assistant Commissioner (ST) is valid on basis of authorization by Chief Commissioner under section 2(91) of the GST Act

Conclusion: Proceeding issued by Joint Commissioner authorizing the Assistant Commissioner (ST) to conduct inspection/search etc. of the premises of the assessee was valid under section 71(1) of the Andhra Pradesh GST Act, 2017 as the authorization by the Chief Commissioner came to be issued in terms of Section 2(91) of the Act which categorically stated that the “Proper Officer” would mean not only the Chief Commissioner but also Officer of the State Tax, who was assigned that function by the Chief Commissioner.

Held: Assessee was engaged in the business of works contracts and specialized in laying pipelines for water supply projects. He got registered as Special Class Contractor with RWS & Engineering Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh with GSTIN 37AEWPB4986Q1ZB, on the rolls of the third respondent. The case of assessee was selected for Audit in accordance with Section 65 of CGST Act, by the Central GST Audit Circle covering the period July-2017 to March-2019. Pursuant to the same, the records were submitted with the authorities for finalization of the Audit proceedings. The authorities visited the business premises of assessee and obtained Xerox copies of certain files for further verification. Exercising power under Section 71(1) of the APGST Act, the first respondent issued the impugned authorization to inspect the business premises of assessee, verify and check the transactions to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. The said impugned proceedings came to be issued basing on an information furnished by the second respondent. Challenging the impugned authorization given by the first respondent, in exercise of his power under Section 71(1) of the APGST Act, the present writ petition came to be filed. It was held that the Proper Officer for the functions referred to Section 71(1) of the Act, would be the three officers referred to in the column designation of officer authorized and one such Officer being Joint Commissioner (ST). In the instant case, as seen from the impugned proceedings, the authorization for access to business purpose under Section 71(1) of APGST Act was issued by Joint Commissioner  (ST).  Therefore, the authorization given by the Joint Commissioner pursuant to the Gazette Notification issued by the Chief Commissioner authorizing certain categories of persons could not be found fault with. It was also to be noted here that the authorization by the Chief Commissioner came to be issued in terms of Section 2(91) of the Act which categorically stated that the “Proper Officer” would mean not only the Chief Commissioner but also Officer of the State Tax, who was assigned that function by the Chief Commissioner. Hence, there were no grounds to grant the relief sought for by assessee, namely, to quash the proceeding issued by Joint Commissioner authorizing the Assistant Commissioner (ST) to conduct inspection/search etc. of the premises of the assessee. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.