M/S Ambey Mining PVT LTD Through Its Authorized Signatory Sri Om Prakash Pareek vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Finance (Deptt 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 issue show cause notices. This conclusion was based on notifications issued by the Board under Section 5 of the GST Act, 2017, which empowered these officers to act as Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, respectively. The Court found that the petitioners' argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction was without substance. While acknowledging the general principle that writ courts should not interfere at the stage of show cause notices, the Court reiterated that interference is permissible if a notice is issued without jurisdiction or in abuse of the process of law. However, in this case, the Court found that the DGGI officers had the necessary jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioners to respond to the show cause notices for consideration by the concerned authorities. The writ petitions were disposed of on this basis.

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 GST Intelligence (DGGI) and were to be adjudicated by the Additional/Joint Commissioner (Adjudication). The petitioners argued that the DGGI officers, specifically the Additional Director General and Deputy/Assistant Director, lacked the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017, as they were not designated as Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners for such purposes. The petitions sought to quash these show cause notices on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether 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, by virtue of notifications issued by the Board, and if they are empowered to act as Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner respectively. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the officers from the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) did not possess the requisite authority to issue show cause notices. They contended that these officers were not designated as Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners, which they believed was a prerequisite for initiating such proceedings under the GST Act, 2017. Revenue's contention: The respondents, representing the Union of India and GST authorities, argued that notifications issued by the Board under Section 5 of the GST Act, 2017, empowered officers like the Additional Director General and Deputy/Assistant Director of DGGI to act as Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, respectively, thereby granting them the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. They relied on the power exercised by the Board under Section 5 of the Act.