Pinnacle Vehicles And Services Private ... vs Joint Commissioner, (Intelligence & ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 31874 Ker

Kerala High Court

Pinnacle Vehicles And Services Private ... vs Joint Commissioner, (Intelligence & ... on 7 November, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

WP(C) No.25724/2024                       1 / 10                     Order Date : 07-11-2024

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                       PRESENT
                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
              THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                                WP(C) NO. 25724 OF 2024

   PETITIONER(S):

          PINNACLE VEHICLES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, WEST HILL P.O.,
          ATHANIKKAL, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. GABI GAFOOR,
          PIN-673005

   RESPONDENT(S):

      1. JOINT COMMISSIONER, (INTELLIGENCE & ENFORCEMENT), STATE GST COMPLEX
         BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, JAWAHAR NAGAR COLONY, ERANHIPALAM P.O.,
         KOZHIKODE, PIN-673006
      2. JOINT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE
         GOODS AND SERVICES TAX, KILLIPALAM, KARAMANA P.O.,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001
      3. COMMISSIONER, TAXES, SECRETARIAT, 9TH FLOOR, TAX TOWER, KILLPPALAM,
         KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001
      4. THE SECRETARY, GST COUNCIL, 5TH FLOOR, TOWER-II, JEEVAN BHARATHI
         BUILDING, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001

        Writ Petition (Civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
   stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
   pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Exhibit P2
   authorisation and Exhibit P4 show cause notice against the petitioner,
   pending disposal of this Writ Petition and restrain the respondents from
   initiating any coercive measures against the petitioner, including but not
   limited to, demands for payment, penalties, or further inspections.
        This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
   and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's order dated
   09-10-2024 and upon hearing the arguments of SRI. AMMU CHARLES, Advocate
   for the petitioner, and of SRI. J. VISHNU, Advocate for R4, the court
   passed the following:
 WP(C) No.25724/2024                         2 / 10                       Order Date : 07-11-2024




                                     GOPINATH P., J
                          -------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2024

REFERENCE ORDER

The petitioner is a registered person under the Central

Goods and Services Tax/State Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017

(CGST/SGST Acts) allocated to the jurisdiction of the Central Tax

Authorities. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging

Ext.P4 show cause notice on a short ground. It is the case of the

petitioner that Ext.P4 show cause notice has been issued by the

State Tax Authority without jurisdiction and without there being

any notification as contemplated by the provisions of Section 6(1)

of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

places reliance on Ext.P8 judgment of the Madras High Court in

Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure v. Special Secretary, Head of

the GST Council Secretariat; MANU/TN/2310/2024, which

takes the view that, without there being a notification as

contemplated by the provisions of Section 6(1) of the CGST Act,

there is no cross-empowerment, and the Central Authority or the

State Authority to which a taxpayer is assigned must be the one WP(C) No.25724/2024 3 / 10 Order Date : 07-11-2024

to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the

CGST/SGST Acts.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit

that a reading of the provisions of Section 6(1) of the CGST Act

will show that empowerment of the State Authorities as proper

officers under the CGST Act is contemplated by the provision

itself, and it is only when any restriction on such powers is to be

placed that a notification as contemplated by the provisions of

Section 6(1) of the CGST Act has to be issued. In support of this

submission, the learned Senior Government Pleader has also

made available for my perusal a copy of the letter bearing

number F.No.CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST, dated 22-06-2020,

issued by the GST Policy Wing of the Central Board of Indirect

Taxes and Customs, which answers a reference from the

Directorate General of GST Intelligence and takes the view that it

is only when any restriction has to be placed on the power of the

State Authorities that a notification as contemplated by the

provisions of Section 6(1) of the CGST Act has to be issued. It is

thus submitted that the petitioner has not made out any ground

for interference with Ext.P4 show cause notice on the ground

that it is issued without jurisdiction.

WP(C) No.25724/2024 4 / 10 Order Date : 07-11-2024

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Senior Government Pleader, I am prima facie of

the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for

interference with Ext.P4 show cause notice on the ground that it

is issued without jurisdiction on account of the fact that there is

no notification issued under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the

CGST Act empowering the officers of the State Goods and

Services Tax Act to issue such a show cause notice . Section 6(1)

of the CGST Act reads as follows:

Section 6. Authorisation of officers of State tax or Union territory tax as proper officer in certain circumstances.

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify.

(2) Subject to the conditions specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1),--

(a) where any proper officer issues an order under this Act, he shall also issue an order under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as authorised by the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, as the case may be, under intimation to the jurisdictional officer of State tax or Union territory tax;

WP(C) No.25724/2024 5 / 10 Order Date : 07-11-2024

(b) where a proper officer under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act has initiated any proceedings on a subject matter, no proceedings shall be initiated by the proper officer under this Act on the same subject matter.

(3) Any proceedings for rectification, appeal and revision, wherever applicable, of any order passed by an officer appointed under this Act shall not lie before an officer appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act.

A reading of Section 6(1) of the CGST Act makes it clear that the

officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or

the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to

be proper officers for the purposes of the Act, subject to such

conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of

the Council, by notification, specify. Unaided by authority, a

reading of the provision suggests to me that by virtue of the

operation of the provision itself, the officers appointed under the

State Goods and Services Tax Act are proper officers for the

purposes of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, and it is

only when any restriction or condition has to be placed on the

exercise of power by any officer appointed under the State Goods

and Services Tax Act that a notification as contemplated by the

provisions of Section 6(1) of the CGST Act has to be issued. WP(C) No.25724/2024 6 / 10 Order Date : 07-11-2024

Paragraph Nos. 2 to 3.3 of the letter issued by the GST Policy

Wing of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as

F.No.CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST dated 22-06-2020, reads thus:

"2. Issue raised in the reference is whether intelligence based enforcement actions initiated by the Central Tax officers against those taxpayers which are assigned to the State Tax administration gets covered under section 6(1) of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of the SGST/UTGST Acts or whether a specific notification is required to be issued for cross empowerment on the same lines as notification No.39/2017-CT dated 13.10.2017 authorizing the State Officers for the purpose or refunds under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act.

3.1 The issue has been examined in the light of relevant legal provisions under the CGST Act, 2017. It is observed that Section 6 of the CGST Act provides for cross empowerment of State Tax officers and Central Tax officers and reads as:-

"6. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes- of this Act, Subject to such conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by Notification specify.

3.2. Thus in terms of sub-section (1) of section 6 of the CGST Act and sub-section (1) of section 6 of the respective State GST Acts respective State Tax officers and the Central Tax officers respectively are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of respective Acts and no separate notification is required for exercising the said powers in this case by the Central Tax Officers under the provisions of the State GST Act. It is noteworthy in this context that the registered person in GST are registered under both the WP(C) No.25724/2024 7 / 10 Order Date : 07-11-2024

CGST Act and the respective SGST/UTGST Act. 3.3 The confusion seems to be arising from the fact that, the said sub-section provides for notification by the Government if such cross empowerment is to be subjected to conditions. It means that notification would be required only if any conditions are to be imposed. For example, Notification No. 39/2017-CT dated 13.10.2017 restricts powers of the State Tax officers for the purposes of refund and they have been specified as the proper officers only under section 54 and 55 of the CGST Act and not under rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (IGST Refund on exports). If no notification is issued to impose any condition, it means that the officers of State and Centre have been appointed as proper officer for all the purpose of the CGST Act and SGST Acts".

While the opinion expressed in the communication referred to

above does not deter this Court from taking a view different from

the view expressed therein, as already noted, I am prima facie of

the view that the opinion expressed in the said communication

represents the true meaning of the provisions of Section 6(1) of

the CGST Act. The Madras High Court in Tvl. Vardhan

Infrastracture (Supra) held thus:

"61. Thus, Section 6(1) of the respective GST Enactments empowers Government to issue notification on the recommendation of GST Council for cross-empowerment. However, no notification has been issued except under Section 6(1) of the respective GST Enactments for the purpose of refund although officers from the Central GST and State GST are proper officers under the respective GST Enactments.

62. Since, no notifications have been issued for cross- WP(C) No.25724/2024 8 / 10 Order Date : 07-11-2024

empowerment with advise of GST Council, except for the purpose of refund of tax under Chapter-XI of the respective GST Enactments r/w Chapter X of the respective GST Rules, impugned proceedings are to be held without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned proceedings are liable to be interfered in these writ petitions.

63. Thus, if an assessee has been assigned administratively with the Central Authorities, pursuant to the decision taken by the GST Council as notified by Circular No.01/2017 bearing Reference F.No.166/ Cross-Empowerment/GSTC/2017 dated 20.09.2017, the State Authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere with the assessment proceedings in absence of a corresponding Notification under Section 6 of the respective GST Enactments.

64. Similarly, if an assessee has been assigned to the State Authorities, pursuant to the decision taken by the GST Council as notified by Circular No.01/2017 bearing Reference F.No.166/Cross-Empowerment/ GSTC/2017 dated 20.09.2017, the officers of the Central GST cannot interfere although they may have such intelligence regarding the alleged violation of the Acts and Rules by an assessee.

65. The manner in which the provisions have been designed are to ensure that there is no cross interference by the counterparts. Only exception provided is under Section 6 of the respective GST enactement. Therefore, in absence of a notification for cross-empowerment, the action taken by the respondents are without jurisdiction. Officers under the State or Central Tax Administration as the case may be cannot usurp the power of investigation or adjudication of an assesse who is not assigned to them.

66. Therefore, the proceedings initiated by the respondents so far against the respective petitioners by the Authorities other than the Authority to whom they have been assigned to are to be held as without WP(C) No.25724/2024 9 / 10 Order Date : 07-11-2024

jurisdiction. Therefore, the impugned proceedings warrants interference".

Since the issue raised in this writ petition will affect several

proceedings, and taking note of the view expressed by the

Madras High Court in Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure (Supra),

which is contrary to the prima facie view that I have taken, I am

of the opinion that this issue requires an authoritative

pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court.

The writ petition is, therefore, adjourned to be heard by a

Division Bench. The Registry shall place the matter before the

Division Bench, if necessary, after obtaining orders of

Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats WP(C) No.25724/2024 10 / 10 Order Date : 07-11-2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25724/2024 Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GST REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED ON 26.08.2020 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORISATION DATED 26.11.2019 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.MS/VTK/INS03/2019-20 DATED 08-10-2021 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. ZD320124033112C DATED 30.01.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.02.2024 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.04.2024 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.07.2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN TVL. VARDHAN INFRASTRUCTURE V. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY, HEAD OF THE GST COUNCIL SECRETARIAT AND OTHERS DATED 11.03.2024 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M/S. RAM AGENCIES V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, THANJAVUR DATED 10.04.2024 Annexure R4(a) A true copy of the relevant portion of the Minutes of the 11th GST Council Meeting held on 4th of March 2017 Annexure R4(b) A true copy of CBEC notification D.O.F. No. CBEC/20/43/01/2017-GST (Pt.) dated 05.10.2018 Annexure R4(c) A true copy of the clarification notification issued by CBEC F. No. CBEC-20/10/07/2019-GST, dated 22-6-2020