TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his office order enclosed at Page No.70 of the respondents' typed set answers the question as to why the petitioner has been asked to show cause before ADG (Adj), Mumbai. Whether the Principal Director General, DGGI, Hqrs, New Delhi is competent to issue such an officer order? - HELD THAT:- When the legislation specifically permits the institution of the assessment proceedings even after coming into force of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 in respect of the liability incurred under the repealed Act, the only inference can be that the earlier statutory regime remains intact for the purpose of the proceeding against the petitioner for the aforementioned liability. If Section 174(2) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 enables institution of assessment proceedings under the Repealed Act, then this Court has to necessarily conclude that it gives power to the authorities to do everything for carrying out the aforesaid purpose. The doctrine of implied powers has to be applied to the case on hand. A combined reading of the various notifications and office orders referred to above would show that the first respondent has not acted on his own. That the demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Zonal Unit, Coimbatore, proposing to levy central excise duty with interest and penalty. The notice read that the petitioner should show cause before the second respondent/Additional Director General(Adjudication), DGGI, Mumbai within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice. This notice is put to challenge in this writ petition. 2. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the prayer made in the writ petition. A typed set of papers has also been filed along with the counter affidavit. 3. The authority of the first respondent to issue the show cause notice cannot really be questioned. This is because, Notification No.14/2017-Central Tax, dated 01.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Sections 3 and 5 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 gives power to Additional Director General/first respondent to issue show cause notice. The contest is more around the competence of the second respondent to adjudicate the matter. Office Order No.574/CE/41/2020/INV14352 dated 12.05.2020 issued by the Principal Director General, DGGI, Hqrs, New Delhi orders that Show Cause Notices which will be issued on or after the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... audit), assessment proceedings, adjudication and any other legal proceedings or recovery of arrears or remedy in respect of any such duty, tax, surcharge, penalty, fine, interest, right, privilege, obligation, liability, forfeiture or punishment, as aforesaid, and any such investigation, inquiry, verification (including scrutiny and audit), assessment proceedings, adjudication and other legal proceedings or recovery of arrears or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such tax, surcharge, penalty, fine, interest, forfeiture or punishment may be levied or imposed as if these Acts had not been so amended or repealed. In other words, in respect of any liability under the repealed Act, fresh proceedings may be instituted. The employment of the expression may be instituted as if the earlier Acts had not been repealed is highly significant. In other words, investigation and assessment proceedings can be instituted even after 01.07.2017 in respect of the liability incurred under the repealed Act and the proceedings can be instituted as if the said Act had not been repealed at all. As held by the Hon'ble Judges comprising the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oses in view [ Craies on Statute Law, p. 239] . The principle on which this doctrine is based is contained in the legal maxim Quando lex aliquid concedit concedere videtur et illud sine quo res ipsa ease non potest . This maxim has been thus translated by Broom thus: whoever grants a thing is deemed also to grant that without which the grant itself would be of no effect . Dealing with this doctrine Pollock, C.B., observed in Michael Fenton and James Fraser v. John Stephen Hampton [(1857-1859) 117 R.R. 32 at p. 41 : II Moo. PC. 347] it becomes therefore all important to consider the true import of this maxim, and the extent to which it has been applied. After the fullest research which I have been able to bestow, I take the matter to stand thus: Whenever anything is authorised, and especially if, as matter of duty, required to be done by law, and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, then that something will be supplied by necessary intendment . This doctrine can be invoked in cases where an Act confers a jurisdiction it also confers by implication the power of doing all such acts, or employing such means, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
