Shourabh Agrawal Director Of M/S Aka Logistics PVT LTD 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, do have the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and issue show cause notices under the GST Act, 2017. This conclusion was based on notifications issued by the Board under Section 5 of the Act, 2017, which confer powers upon these officers to act as Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, respectively. The Court found the petitioners' contention regarding the lack of jurisdiction to be without substance. However, the Court also reiterated the settled legal position that while writ courts should generally not interfere at the show cause notice stage, they would intervene if a notice is issued without jurisdiction or in abuse of process. Since the Court found jurisdiction to be present, it held that the petitioners were required to respond to the show cause notices for consideration by the concerned authorities. The Court did not decide on the merits of the show cause notices themselves.

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 before the Jharkhand High Court challenging show cause notices issued by GST authorities. The notices were issued by the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) and sought to be adjudicated by the Additional/Joint Commissioner (Adjudication). The petitioners contended that the officers issuing these notices lacked the necessary jurisdiction. The Damodar Valley Corporation was listed as a proforma respondent in some of the petitions. The core of the dispute revolves around the authority of certain GST officers to initiate proceedings under the GST Act, 2017.

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 issue show cause notices, thereby having jurisdiction? (Question of law) The petitioners argued that the officers issuing the show cause notices lacked the requisite jurisdiction. They contended that the powers conferred upon the Additional Director General and Deputy/Assistant Director of GST Intelligence were not equivalent to those of a Commissioner or Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, respectively, as required to initiate such proceedings. They relied on the principle that a show cause notice issued without jurisdiction is void ab initio. The respondents, implicitly through the court's reasoning, argued that the officers did possess the necessary jurisdiction. They likely relied on notifications issued by the Board under Section 5 of the Act, 2017, which empower certain officers to act as Commissioners or Deputy/Assistant Commissioners for the purpose of initiating proceedings.