Summary: In Tvl. Sri Paranjothi Traders v. State Tax Officer (Intelligence), the Madras High Court upheld the authority of a State Intelligence Officer to pass orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act). The petitioner challenged an order issued by the Intelligence Officer, claiming they were denied a fair opportunity for a hearing before the decision. The petitioner also argued that the Intelligence Officer should not have passed the order. However, the court, referencing a prior decision in M/s. Rasthe Garments v. State Tax Officer, ruled that an Intelligence Officer falls under the definition of a “proper officer” as per Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, allowing them to pass such orders. The court dismissed the writ petition and advised the petitioner to seek redress through a statutory appeal process, affirming that there is no legal prohibition on Intelligence Officers acting within their assigned duties under the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tvl. Sri Paranjothi Traders v. State Tax Officer (Intelligence) [W.P. (MD) No. 1148 of 2024 dated July 01, 2024] dismissed the writ petition and thereby held that the Intelligence Officer is empowered to pass the orders under GST when the same falls within the definition of proper officer under Section 2(91) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (“the CGST Act”).
Facts:
Tvl. Sri Paranjothi Traders (“the Petitioner”) subsequent to filing of writ petition relating to granting of proper opportunity of personal hearing and disposal thereof prior to taking into consideration the explanation provided by the Petitioner, the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) passed the order dated August 04, 2023 (“the Impugned Order”) wherein the orders are passed by the State Intelligence Officer.
Held:
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of W.P. (MD) No. 1148 of 2024, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Rasthe Garments v. State Tax Officer [W.P. (MD) No.25548 and 26389 of 2023 dated June 06, 2024] held that there is no embargo on the intelligence officer to pass the order when the same falls within the definition of proper officer as contemplated under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act especially when the officers passing the Impugned Order were different even though they were of same department. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed and directed the Petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal to address its grievances.
Relevant Provision:
Section 2(91) of the CGST Act:
Section 2(91) “proper officer” in relation to any function to be performed under this Act, means the Commissioner or the officer of the central tax who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board;
*****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
