Case Law Details
Abhinaya Constructions Vs State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that Commissioner is duly empowered to designate proper officer for completion of assessment under Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [TNGST Act].
Facts- The impugned orders are primarily challenged on the ground that the Commissioner has no authority to delegate the power to the third respondent to pass the impugned order. It is submitted that the Commissioner has delegated the powers to the third respondent in exercise of power under Section 5 of the respective GST Enactments, pursuant to which, the impugned orders have been passed, are liable to be declared as non est in law.
Conclusion- Held that the assessment has to be completed by a proper Officer and it is open for the Commissioner to designate such Officers as proper Officers as defined in Section 2(91) of the TNGST Act and therefore, the delegation in terms of Notification No.4 of 2017 issued under Section 5(1) of the TNGST Act, appointing proper Officers is proper.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
By this common order, all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of.
2. The impugned orders are primarily challenged on the ground that the Commissioner has no authority to delegate the power to the third respondent [wrongly mentioned as second respondent in the respective Writ Petitions] to pass the impugned order.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the definition of Adjudicating Authority in Section 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereinafter referred to as “the TNGST Act”] does not include the Commissioner, Revisional Authority, the Authority for Advance Ruling, the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling etc. It is therefore submitted that the Commissioner has delegated the powers to the third respondent in exercise of power under Section 5 of the respective GST Enactments, pursuant to which, the impugned orders have been passed, are liable to be declared as non est in law.
4. The above said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the very scheme under the GST Act. The assessment has to be completed by a proper Officer and it is open for the Commissioner to designate such Officers as proper Officers as defined in Section 2(91) of the TNGST Act and therefore, the delegation in terms of Notification No.4 of 2017 issued under Section 5(1) of the TNGST Act, appointing proper Officers is proper. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. As far as the challenge to the impugned orders on the ground that the show cause notice is not proper is concerned, it is also left open as such issue has to be decided only before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments. Therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. These Writ Petitions are dismissed with the above liberty. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Author Bio
