M/S Salasar Tradeco PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the challenge raised by the petitioners against Annexure P-1 Circular and Annexure P-2 Notification concerning the competence of the issuing authority and the manner of issuance was without merit. The Court noted that a corrigendum notification dated July 29, 2019, had been issued, correcting the earlier notifications to state they were issued by the "Government" instead of the 'Board'. This corrigendum, published in the official gazette, rectified the mistake. The Court found that the appointments, made in exercise of powers under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the CGST Act and Section 3 of the IGST Act, 2017, were indeed issued by the 'Government', which holds the exclusive power in this regard. Consequently, officers in various directorates were appointed as 'Central Tax Officers' with powers throughout India. The Court found no challenge to the corrigendum notification itself or the statutory provisions. Therefore, the respondents' version stood upheld, and the petitioners' contentions were repelled. The Court found no relevance for the judgments cited by the petitioners regarding the nature of publication.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Yamuna Trading Corporation, M/s SKP & Sons, M/s Ganga Metals, M/s Mangal Commercial Pvt. Ltd., and M/s Salasar Tradeco Pvt. Ltd., along with individuals associated with these entities, filed writ petitions challenging the validity of certain notifications and a circular issued under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The core of their challenge was that the notifications appointing officers as 'Central Tax Officers' and assigning them functions as 'Proper Officer' were purportedly issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) instead of the "Government," which they argued was the competent authority. The respondents, including the Union of India and various GST authorities, contended that the appointments and assignments were valid. A corrigendum notification dated July 29, 2019, was later issued, rectifying the earlier notifications to state they were issued by the "Government."

Key Issues

1. Whether the notifications appointing officers as 'Central Tax Officers' and assigning them functions as 'Proper Officer' under the CGST Act, 2017, and IGST Act, 2017, were invalid due to being issued by the 'Central Board of Excise and Customs' instead of the 'Government' (Section 3, Section 5 of CGST Act, 2017, Section 3 of IGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that the notifications were ultra vires and void ab initio as they were issued by the Board, which lacked the statutory power to make such appointments and assignments. They argued that only the "Government" had the exclusive power to issue such notifications under the relevant sections of the Acts. Revenue's argument: The respondents argued that the appointments were made in exercise of powers vested in the Government and that any inadvertent error in mentioning the issuing authority was rectifiable. They relied on the subsequent corrigendum notification to validate the appointments and assignments.