Gora Koley vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue

Held

The Court held that the Additional Director General, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, and the Deputy/Assistant Director, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, possess the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and issue show cause notices under the GST Act, 2017. This conclusion was based on the notifications issued by the Board under Section 5 of the Act, which empowered these officers to function as Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners, respectively. The Court found the petitioners' argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction to be without substance. However, the Court also reiterated the settled legal position that while writ courts generally should not interfere at the stage of show cause notices, they would intervene if a notice is issued without jurisdiction or in abuse of the process of law. Since the Court found that the DGGI officers had jurisdiction, it was of the view that the petitioners were required to respond to the show cause notices. The Court did not interfere with the show cause notices themselves, directing the petitioners to present their contentions before the concerned authorities.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s AKA Logistics Private Limited, M/s Ambey Mining Pvt. Ltd., Gora Koley, Shourabh Agrawal, and Coal Mines Associated Traders Private Limited, filed writ petitions challenging show cause notices issued by GST authorities. The notices were issued by the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) and were to be adjudicated by the Additional/Joint Commissioner (Adjudication). The petitioners argued that the officers issuing and adjudicating these notices lacked the necessary jurisdiction under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The DGGI, represented by the Additional Director and Senior Intelligence Officer, and the adjudicating authorities, represented by the Additional/Joint Commissioner, were the respondents. Damodar Valley Corporation was a proforma respondent in some petitions. The core of the dispute revolved around the statutory powers vested in GST officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Additional Director General, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, or Deputy/Assistant Director, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, have the power to initiate proceedings under the GST Act, 2017, and consequently issue show cause notices, considering the notifications issued by the Board under Section 5 of the Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the officers issuing the show cause notices, specifically those from the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI), lacked the requisite jurisdiction. They contended that the DGGI officers were not empowered to initiate proceedings or issue show cause notices under the Act. Revenue's contention: The respondents, representing the Union of India and GST authorities, argued that the notifications issued by the Board under Section 5 of the GST Act, 2017, conferred the necessary powers upon officers of the DGGI to act as Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners/Assistant Commissioners, thereby granting them the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and issue show cause notices. They relied on the powers derived from Section 5 of the Act and relevant notifications.