M/S. Bommineni Ramanjaneyulu Special Class Contractor (Rws) vs. The Joint Commissioner Of State Taxes

Held

The Court held that the authorization given by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes to the Assistant Commissioner for access to business premises under Section 71(1) of the APGST Act was valid. The Court referred to Section 2(91) of the APGST Act, which defines 'Proper Officer' as the Chief Commissioner or an Officer of the State Tax assigned that function by the Chief Commissioner. Section 71(1) requires authorization by a Proper Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner. The Court also considered the Gazette Notification dated 09.12.2019, which designated the Joint Commissioner (ST) working in the divisions as authorized officers for functions under Section 71(1). The Court found that the Joint Commissioner, being one of the designated officers in the notification, was empowered to issue the authorization. Therefore, the petitioner's argument that the Joint Commissioner could not delegate the power was found to be incorrect in light of the notification issued by the Chief Commissioner in terms of Section 2(91) of the Act. The Court found no grounds to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Bommineni Ramanjaneyulu, a Special Class Contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an authorization for access to business premises issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes (first respondent) to the Assistant Commissioner (second respondent) under Section 71(1) of the APGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued this authorization was invalid. The petitioner's business premises were selected for audit by the Central GST Audit Circle, Nellore, for the period July 2017 to March 2019. Subsequently, the second respondent visited the petitioner's premises on October 29, 2021, and obtained Xerox copies of files. The impugned authorization was issued on October 28, 2021, based on information from the second respondent. The respondents contended that the authorization was issued following due procedure after scrutiny of the petitioner's returns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the authorization for access to business premises issued by the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 71(1) of the APGST Act, 2017, is valid in law? The petitioner argued that the authorization was contrary to Sub-Section (91) of Section 2 read with Sections 5(1) and 5(3) of the APGST Act. Specifically, the petitioner contended that only the Chief Commissioner has the power to delegate his powers under Section 5(3) of the APGST Act, and the Joint Commissioner could not further delegate this power to the Assistant Commissioner. The respondents argued that the authorization was issued following the procedure contemplated under law. They asserted that the averment that the Joint Commissioner cannot sub-delegate power to a Deputy or Assistant Commissioner is incorrect. The respondents relied on a Gazette Notification issued on December 9, 2019, which specified the 'Proper Officers' for various functions under the Act.