TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g up the position, this Court came across a 'Corrigendum Notification dated 29.07.2019' published in the official Gazette (as noted in paragraph 21 of the judgment) whereby the mistake occurred in Annexure P/2 Notification dated 01.07.2017 (to the effect that the said Notification was issued by the Board) was corrected as issued 'by the Government'. The contention raised by the Respondents as to the circumstances under which the appointment of Proper Officers in different parts of the country is necessitated; the contention that the scope and applicability of Section 6 of the CGST Act is more with reference to 'assessment', which is not the purpose of appointing Proper Officers in different parts of the country conferring power to detect mischief/foul-play (wherever that is committed by unscrupulous assessees) and the specific contention that if at all there is initiation of simultaneous proceedings by two different officers in respect of the same cause of action, it will always be open for the assessee to bring it to the notice of the officer who has taken parallel action to avoid parallel proceedings, have been upheld. Since this Court has upheld tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Formerly known as Central Board of Excise and Customs), The Goods and Service Tax Council (GST Council), Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate General of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence, M/s Salasar Tradeco Pvt. Ltd., Sri Pradeep Agrawal, Sri Pramod Agarwal Versus Union of India, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Formerly known as Central Board of Excise And Customs), The Commissioner, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Formerly Known As Central Board of Excise and Customs), The Goods and Service Tax Council (GST Council) Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods And Service Tax Intelligence Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice And Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge For Review Petitioners : Shri Kartik Kurmy, Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocates for the Appellant. For Respondent/Union of India : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Assistant Solicitor General For Respondent-Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an independent challenge and it was not an off-shoot of the challenge against Annexure P/2 Notification dated 01.07.2017. By virtue of the corrigendum Notification dated 29.07.2019 issued by the Central Government, the mistake appearing in Annexure P/2 Notification as if it were issued by the Board has been corrected as having issued by the Central Government; answering the said question against the Writ/Review Petitioners. But still, the challenge against Annexure P/1 Circular was an independent one and hence the learned counsel reiterated the submissions as pleaded in the Writ Petitions/Review Petitions and also as pointed out earlier. 5. The contention of the Review Petitioners is that appointment of Proper Officers could have been effected only by way of notification i.e. notification in the official gazette and admittedly since Annexure P/1 Circular is not a gazette notification, which is a mandatory requirement in view of Section 167 read with Section 168 of the CGST Act, it is liable to be set aside. Similarly, it is pointed out that the statute does not contemplate appointment of several persons as Proper Officers defined under Section 2(91) of the CGST Act and the sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch warrants interference. The legal and factual aspects have been meticulously answered by the Respondents in their reply filed in answer to the contents of the writ petition and was argued accordingly. It was clearly pointed out that notification in the Gazette was only required for the purpose of delegation and not for appointment of Proper Officers as discernible from Section 167 of the CGST Act. Section 167 sought to be relied on by the Petitioners only provides that, if the power is to be delegated to anybody from outside i.e. who is having no power to act under the CGST Act, it has to be given only by way of notification, subject to conditions, if any. Hence, Section 167 of the CGST Act is not at all attracted with regard to the appointment of Proper Officers. Annexure P/1 Circular is only an assignment of the functions and not a delegation of power to somebody who is not an authority or officer who can exercise the power/authority under the CGST Act and hence within the scope of Section 168 of the CGST Act as well. 7. Shri Maneesh Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, made similar submissions as already ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a 'Corrigendum Notification dated 29.07.2019' published in the official Gazette (as noted in paragraph 21 of the judgment) whereby the mistake occurred in Annexure P/2 Notification dated 01.07.2017 (to the effect that the said Notification was issued by the Board) was corrected as issued 'by the Government'. As noted in paragraph 22 of the judgment, since the Corrigendum Notification dated 29.07.2019 was definitely to cut the roots of the case filed by the Petitioners, this Court found it appropriate to cause the matter to be listed for consideration again. It was accordingly, that the cases were listed on 22.10.2019 and the parties were heard again, as specifically noted in paragraph 22 of the judgment. Further opportunity was given to both the sides to verify the position and to address the Court on merits and to make appropriate submissions after calling for the remarks/explanations from both the sides, listing the cases on 06.11.2019. On that day, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners expressed sincere regrets as to the serious lapses in not bringing the Corrigendum Notification issued on 29.07.2019 to the notice of this Court. So was done by the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tention that if at all there is initiation of simultaneous proceedings by two different officers in respect of the same cause of action, it will always be open for the assessee to bring it to the notice of the officer who has taken parallel action to avoid parallel proceedings, have been upheld. Since this Court has upheld that above contentions of the Respondents, repelling the contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners to the contrary, as mentioned in paragraph 24 of the judgment, there is no error apparent on the face of record, to invoke the power of review. 10. The Review Petitioners have never pleaded in the review petitions that they had made any further contentions with reference to the initial challenge raised against Annexure P/1 Circular or as to the plurality of the Proper Officers appointed throughout the country when the cases were listed and heard by this Court either on 22.10.2019 or on 06.11.2019. In fact, they were only seeking for apology of the Court, expressing regrets for not brining the correct position (with reference to the Corrigendum Notification dated 29.07.2019) to the notice of this Court and to drop further action, if any. 11. It is quite evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
