Sri Pankaj Agarwal 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 regarding the competence of the issuing authority and the manner of issuance was unsustainable. The Court noted that a corrigendum notification dated July 29, 2019, had been issued, which corrected the earlier notifications to reflect that they were issued by the 'Government' and not the 'Central Board of Excise and Customs'. The Court found that this corrigendum effectively addressed the defect pointed out by the petitioners. The Court observed that the petitioners had not challenged this corrigendum notification. Therefore, the Court concluded that the appointments made under the corrected notification, in exercise of powers vested in the 'Government' under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the CGST Act and Section 3 of the IGST Act, 2017, were valid. The Court upheld the respondents' contention that the appointments were necessary to confer powers upon officers throughout India for specific purposes and repelled the petitioners' challenge. The judgments cited by the petitioners regarding the nature of publication were deemed not attracted to the present case.

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 the validity of 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 Officers' under the GST regime, were purportedly issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) instead of the 'Government'. This, they argued, 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 listed for hearing, and during the proceedings, a corrigendum notification dated July 29, 2019, was brought to the court's attention, which corrected the original notifications to state they were issued by the 'Government'. Both parties expressed regrets for not bringing this corrigendum to the court's notice earlier.

Key Issues

1. Whether Annexure P-1 Circular and Annexure P-2 Notification, which appointed officers and assigned them functions as 'Proper Officers' under the CGST Act, 2017, and IGST Act, 2017, are invalid on the ground that they were purportedly issued by the 'Central Board of Excise and Customs' instead of the 'Government'? (Question of law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the issuing authority for the said circular and notification was incorrectly stated as the 'Central Board of Excise and Customs' instead of the 'Government'. They argued that the power to make such appointments vests exclusively with the 'Government', and therefore, the said circular and notification were without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. They relied on principles regarding the nature of publication required for statutory instruments. Revenue's arguments: The respondents argued that the appointments were validly made. They presented a corrigendum notification dated July 29, 2019, which corrected the earlier notifications to state they were issued by the 'Government'. They submitted that this corrigendum rectified the inadvertent mistake and that the appointments were indeed made by the competent authority.