Pinnacle Vehicles And Services Private Limited Vs Joint Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
Kerala High Court held that there is no need for issuance of separate notification for cross-empowerment for authorising state GST officials as proper officer for the purpose CGST Act. Accordingly, writ disposed of.
Facts- The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by authorisation and show cause notice, respectively, served on it in connection with proceedings initiated against u/s. 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. In the writ petition, the main challenge was essentially with regard to the jurisdiction of the Officers of the State GST Department to issue the aforesaid authorisation and show cause notice to the petitioner.
It is the case of the petitioner that u/s. 6 of the CGST Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act [SGST Act] or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act [UTGST Act] cannot be authorised as proper officers for the purposes of the CGST Act unless and until conditions for exercise of the powers of a proper officer are first specified by the Government on the recommendation of the GST Council through a notification issued for the purpose.
Conclusion- Held that we find ourselves in complete agreement with the prima facie view taken by the learned Judge [Justice Gopinath P.] in the reference order. The provisions of Section 6(1) of the CGST Act make it abundantly clear that the cross-empowerment of the Officers of the SGST/UTGST Department to function as proper officers under the CGST Act is through the legislative mandate under Section 6(1) of the CGST Act. It is a mandate and empowerment that is presently unqualified but expressly made subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendation of the Council, by notification, specify. In other words, while the statutory mandate at present is unqualified, it will be qualified in the event the Government specifies conditions for the exercise of power under the statutory mandate, pursuant to the recommendations of the Council. We cannot persuade ourselves to read the statutory mandate as one that does not presently bring about a cross-empowerment but merely envisages such a situation as and when a notification is issued at some time in the future.
