GST - Officers appointed under MPGST Act are authorized to be proper officers for purpose of IGST: High Court
By TIOL News Service
INDORE, SEPT 25, 2018: IN the present case, the subject vehicle was transporting goods for inter-state supply of goods from Gurgaon, Haryana to Pune, Maharashtra. As per E-Way Bill System, the number of vehicle was mentioned as HR-38-0823 whereas, the correct vehicle number was HR-38-X-0823.
Alleging that the E-Way Bill was defective and not updated, show cause notice was issued on 13.07.2018 to inspect the subject vehicle on 15.07.2018.
On inspection, in exercise of powers under Section 129(1) of the MPGST Act, seizure order was passed on 15.07.2018.
The Petitioner prays for quashing the seizure memo dated 15.07.2018 issued under Section 129(1) of Madhya Pradesh GST Act, 2017.
According to the petitioner, M. P. State Government or officials authorized under the MPGST Act, 2017 have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the Integrated Goods and Services Act, 2017 particularly under Section 4 of the IGST Act, 2017 .
It is also averred that there is no separate notification authorizing officials of the State Government under the IGST Act to exercise powers under the IGST Act, 2017, therefore, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have no power to inspect, search and seize goods under the IGST Act, 2017 and prayed for its quashment.
Section 4 of the IGST Act reads -
4. Authorisation of officers of State tax or Union territory tax as proper officer in certain circumstances. - Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, subject to such exceptions and conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify.
The High Court observed that no notification has been issued by the Central Government u/s 4 of the IGST Act.
Nonetheless, by order dated 12.10.2017, the respondent No.4 was authorized as proper officer and was bestowed with powers such as inspection, search and seizure under Section 68 of the MPGST Act.
Serial Nos.31 and 57 of the order dated 12.10.2017 reads as under :-
|
S. No.
|
Section of MPGST Act
|
Functions Assigned
|
Desgination of Proper Officer
|
|
31
|
68(3)
|
To intercept any conveyance to inspect documents, devices and goods
|
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Assistant Commissioner of State Tax State Tax Officer Inspector of State Tax Taxation Assistant
|
|
57
|
129(3)
|
To issue notice and pass an order in tax and penalty of relation to seized goods
|
Deputy Commissioner of State Tax Assistant Commissioner of State Tax State Tax Officer
|
The High Court noted that the MP jurisdictional authorities had passed a final order dated 23.07.2018 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.4,20,266/- (minimum) as tax and penalty in terms of Section 129(3) of the MPGST Act.
The High Court, therefore, observed -
"13. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties so also the provisions of Section 4 of the IGST Act, we are of the view that officers appointed under the MPGST Act are authorized to be proper officers for the purpose of IGST and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no notification was issued and in absence of any notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act has no force, we cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the action of the respondent No.4 is wholly without jurisdiction."
Noting that against the aforesaid final order dated 23.07.2018, statutory appeal under Section 109 of the Act has been provided, the High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petition.
The Writ petition was dismissed.
(See 2018-TIOL-2867-HC-MP-GST)
