Amit Kashyap Vs Principal Secretary (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition filed by retired IAS officer Amit Kashyap, challenging the relaxed eligibility criteria for the appointment of Technical Members (State) in the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The court clarified that the relaxation, which allows officers with 25 years of gazetted service to be considered even without the stipulated 25 years in Group ‘A’, is applicable only to officers of the State Government and not to those from the All-India Service.
Mr. Kashyap, a retired IAS officer, had sought to quash a notification and corrigendum issued by the Himachal Pradesh government, arguing that they were premature and ultra vires to the CGST Act, 2017. He contended that since he, an officer with over 25 years of Group ‘A’ service, was available, the relaxation of criteria was unwarranted.
The State respondents, including the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Sales Tax and Excise, defended the notification, stating that the GST Council had approved the relaxation due to the unavailability of State officers meeting the original Group ‘A’ experience criteria. They argued that the petition was an abuse of legal process and that Mr. Kashyap, as an All-India Service officer, lacked the locus standi to challenge the relaxation intended for State officers.
Respondents from the GST Council further corroborated that the relaxation was granted based on the Himachal Pradesh government’s recommendation, citing the practical difficulty in finding State officers with 25 years of Group ‘A’ service.
Legal Framework and Court’s Interpretation:
The High Court’s decision centered on the interpretation of Section 110(d) of the CGST Act, 2017, and its proviso. Section 110(d) outlines the eligibility for a Technical Member (State), requiring an officer of the State Government or All-India Service to have held a rank not below Additional Commissioner of Value Added Tax or State Goods and Services Tax, with 25 years of service in Group ‘A’ or equivalent, and at least three years of experience in taxation or finance.
The crucial proviso to Section 110(d) states: “Provided that the State Government may, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, relax the requirement of completion of twenty-five years of service in Group A, or equivalent, in respect of officers of such State where no person has completed twenty-five years of service in Group A, or equivalent, but has completed twenty five years of service in the Government, subject to such conditions, and till such period, as may be specified in the notification.”
The court emphasized that a combined reading of Section 110(d) and its proviso clearly distinguishes between “Officers of the State Government” and “Officers of the All-India Service.” The proviso, the court noted, explicitly states that the relaxation for 25 years of service in Group ‘A’ or equivalent is “only available in respect of the officers of such State” where the specified Group ‘A’ experience is lacking, but officers have completed 25 years of government service.
Court’s Rejection of Petitioner’s Arguments:
The court dismissed Mr. Kashyap’s contention that the relaxation was ultra vires because he, as an All-India Service officer with the requisite experience, was available. The court held that the availability of an All-India Service officer was “irrelevant and rather inconsequential” as the relaxation provision was specifically for State officers.
The court further noted that similar relaxations had been granted to State government officers in ten other states, underscoring the commonality of such a situation.
Regarding the petitioner’s argument that the relaxation diluted the selection criteria, the court referred to the minutes of the 49th GST Council meeting. The GoM (Group of Ministers) acknowledged the Supreme Court’s directives in the R. Gandhi case, which laid down minimum qualifications for tribunal members. While maintaining the 25-year Group ‘A’ experience for Central Government Technical Members, the GoM recognized that officers of similar rank in State Governments might not meet this criterion.
The GoM’s decision was to allow States flexibility to reduce the 25-year Group ‘A’ requirement on the Council’s recommendation, ensuring that “every State to offer their most experienced and competent officers” for the GSTAT. However, it was also stipulated that officers should have a total of 25 years of government service. The GoM also considered the rank of officers, suggesting they should be at least one level senior to the First Appellate level to hear appeals against their own orders. This deliberation indicated a conscious decision to balance the need for experienced officers with the practical realities of State service structures.
Finally, the court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the notification was issued without proper reasoning or to favor a specific group, reiterating that identical relaxations had been granted in other states. The court also highlighted that officers of the All-India Service were only made eligible for the Technical Member post through an amendment to the CGST Act, as they were not eligible under the un-amended Section 110(1)(d).
In conclusion, the High Court found no merit in the petition, affirming the validity of the notification and corrigendum issued by the Himachal Pradesh government regarding the eligibility criteria for Technical Members (State) in the GSTAT. The petition was dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
