M/S Mangal Commercial PVT. LTD vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the challenge raised against Annexure P-1 Circular and Annexure P-2 Notification regarding 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, which corrected the earlier notifications to state that they were issued by the 'Government' and not the 'Board'. This corrigendum, published in the official gazette, rectified the initial mistake. The Court found that the appointments of officers as 'Central Tax Officers' and the assignment of functions as 'Proper Officer' were validly made by the 'Government' in exercise of powers under the CGST Act and IGST Act. The petitioners' contention to the contrary was repelled. Consequently, the Court found no relevance in the judgments cited by the petitioners concerning the nature of publication. The challenge raised by the petitioners did not hold water.

Facts

The petitioners, including 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., filed writ petitions challenging Annexure P-1 Circular and Annexure P-2 Notification. The core of their challenge was that these documents, which appointed officers and assigned them functions as 'Proper Officer' under the CGST Act, were purportedly issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) instead of the 'Government'. This alleged procedural flaw, according to the petitioners, rendered the appointments and subsequent actions invalid. The respondents, including the Union of India and various GST authorities, contended that the appointments were validly made. The matter was re-listed after a corrigendum notification dated July 29, 2019, was brought to the court's attention, which corrected the issuing authority to 'Government'.

Key Issues

1. Whether Annexure P-1 Circular and Annexure P-2 Notification, which appointed officers and assigned them functions as 'Proper Officer' under the CGST Act, 2017, are invalid due to being purportedly issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) instead of the 'Government'? (Question of law). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the notifications and circular were issued by an incompetent authority (CBEC) and not by the 'Government' as required, rendering them void ab initio. They relied on principles regarding the nature of publication and the competence of issuing authorities. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the appointments were validly made. They pointed to a corrigendum notification dated July 29, 2019, which corrected the issuing authority to 'Government', thereby rectifying any initial error. They contended that the appointments were necessary for appointing 'Proper Officers' with powers throughout India for specific purposes. The respondents' version on all points was upheld.