9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, Sri Pankaj Agarwal S/o Sri Pramod Agarwal Versus Union of India Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, 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) Through the Ld. Secretary, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence West, Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur, Sri Ravi Agarwal S/o Late Shri Om Prakash Gupta Versus Union of India Secretary, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fortunately omitted to consider the challenge in respect of 'Annexure P/1 Circular' dated 05.07.2017 and the 'plurality of Proper Officers' which requires interference and hence, the prayer to have the writ petitions heard afresh. 3. Heard Shri Kartik Kurmy, the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners, Shri B. Gopa Kumar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India and Shri Maneesh Sharma, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, at length. 4. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioner points out that the case of the writ petitioners has been correctly noted by this Court as observed in paragraph 2 and 15 of the judgment. But coming to the subsequent portion of the judgment, there is a mistake in respect of the observations in paragraphs 12 and 20 leading to dismissal of the writ petitions, which is not correct as per the materials brought on record. The learned counsel submits that the challenge raised by the writ petitioner against Annexure P/1 Circular was an independent challenge and it was not an off-shoot of the challenge against Annexure P/2 Notification dated 01.07.2017. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue with regard to the challenge in respect of the Annexure P/1 Circular dated 05.07.2017 and the contention with regard to the multiple Proper Officers appointed by the Respondents all throughout the country. It is pointed out that, though the Respondents can appoint several Central Tax Officers, they cannot appoint so many Proper Officers, that too without any Gazette notification in terms of Section 167 read with section 168 of the CGST Act. The learned counsel submits that the grievance of the Review Petitioners is not in respect of appointment of Central Tax Officers vide Annexure P/2, but they are assuming the power as Proper Officers, that too, throughout the India, which is quite unconstitutional. 6. Shri B. Gopa Kumar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the review petitions are neither maintainable in law nor in facts. The grounds raised by the Review Petitioners are only suggestive for a rehearing, which is not possible while exercising the power of review. It is stated that there is no error apparent on the face of record which warrants interference. The legal and factual aspects have been meticulously answered by the Respondents in their reply filed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment and not with regard to the steps to be pursued by the Proper Officers in different locations, wherever the mischief is committed or perpetuated. 8. There is no dispute with regard to the nature of challenge raised by the Review Petitioners with reference to Annexure P/1 Circular dated 05.07.2017, Annexure P/2 Notification dated 01.07.2017 and the plurality of appointment of Proper Officers throughout the territory of the country. The primary contention was with reference to the competency/authority of the Board to have issued Annexure P/2 Notification as per the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, since such power is exclusively vested with the Central Government. Insofar as there was no notification by the Central Government, Annexure P/2 Notification was stated as bad in all respects. 9. As noted in paragraph 4 of the judgment, the matter was heard on different dates including on 16.10.2019. After the hearing held on 16.10.2019, they were taken up reserving judgment. In the course of working 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) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , stands repelled. Thus, it is explicitly clear that the contention raised by the Respondents that Section 167 of the CGST Act was not attracted to the case in hand and hence, no Gazette notification was necessary insofar as Annexure P/1 Circular was issued; came to be upheld. Similarly, the contention of the Petitioners, to the contrary, having been repelled, it is not correct or proper for the Review Petitioners to contend that there is some omission on the part of this Court in considering the challenge raised against Annexure P/1 Circular dated 05.07.2017. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
