TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under sub-sections (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (9) and (10) of Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, corresponding to Section 3 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. As per the table appended thereto, Additional or Joint Commissioner of Central Tax have been assigned functions as the proper officer , and the monetary limit of the said officers for issuance of show cause notice and orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act and Section 20 of the IGST Act, in the case of central tax and integrated tax not paid, or short paid, or erroneously refunded, or input tax credit of central tax and integrated tax wrongly availed of or utilized, is above ₹ 2,00,00,000.00 (Rupees two crores). Admittedly the monitory limit in the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice, Additional Commissioner i.e., the respondent No.4 has called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the product manufactured and supplied to various customers during the period from July, 2017 to March, 2019 should not be classified under the tariff heading 21069099 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 made applicable to the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly the CGST Act hereinafter). 3.1. By the said notice, petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why an amount of ₹ 79,95,295.00 (Rupees seventy nine lakhs, ninety five thousand, two hundred and ninety five only) being the CGST not paid, should not be demanded under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act. 3.2. That apart, petitioner has also been call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CGST Act, as well as circular dated 05.07.2017 of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (briefly the Board hereinafter), and circular dated 09.02.2018 of the said Board, to contend that Additional Commissioner i.e., the respondent No.4 is indeed the proper officer in the present case, and therefore, there should be no interference with the impugned show cause notice on the ground that the notice issuing authority is not the proper officer . 6. We have given our due consideration to the respective submissions made at the Bar. 7. As already pointed out earlier, the impugned show cause notice has been issued by respondent No.4 alleging contravention of various provisions of the CGST Act, as well as the IGST Act, where-after, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sections 3 to 5 of the CGST Act, it would not be necessary for us to delve deep into the aforesaid provisions, because those provisions deal with appointment of class of officers, and not specifically with the appointment of proper officer . Nonetheless we may mention that as per sub-section (2) of Section 5 of CGST Act, the officer of central tax may exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed under the CGST Act, on any other officer of central tax, who is subordinate to him. 10. As per Circular No.3/3/2017 GST dated 05.07.2017 of the Board, which has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by clause (91) of Section 2 of the CGST Act, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, and subject to sub-section (2) of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0,000.00 (Rupees two crores). 12. Admittedly the monitory limit in the present case is above ₹ 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores). In such circumstances, and having regard to the above, it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that respondent No.4 is not the proper officer competent to issue the impugned show cause notice. 13. Insofar the decision in Canon India Private Limited (supra) is concerned, the main issue confronting the Supreme Court was whether after clearance of the cameras on the basis that they were exempted from levy of basic customs duty, the proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for recovery of duty not paid under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, are valid in law? It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
