DGGI Has Jurisdiction to Issue SCN Under Section 74 | HC Directed to Respond to SCN
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 27 November, 2024
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: AKA Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India - [2024] 168 taxmann.com 461 (Jharkhand)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Sujit Narayan Prasad & Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
-
Kartik Kurmy, Nitin Kr. Pasari & Ms Sidhi Jalan, Advs. for the Petitioner.
-
P.A.S. Pati, Amit Kumar, Sr. Standing Counsels, Anurag Vijay, Jr. Standing Counsel, Om Prakash, Srijan & Mrs Debolina Sen Hirani, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) to issue demand-cum-show cause notices u/s 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that these officers were not “Proper Officers” under the GST Act and lacked the authority to issue such notices, as Section 74 requires a Proper Officer to initiate proceedings for tax not paid or short paid.
High Court Held
The High Court observed that Notification No. 14/2017 – Central Tax dated 1st July 2017, authorized officers of the DGGI to exercise the powers of central tax officers, including the issuance of show cause notices u/s 74 of the CGST Act.
Therefore, the ground which has been taken by the petitioner to quash the show-cause notices due to want of jurisdiction was having no substance and accordingly, the DGGI has jurisdiction to issue show-cause notices. Thus, the instant writ petition was to be disposed of directing the petitioner to respond to the said show-cause notice for its consideration by the authority concerned.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories, (2007) 13 SCC 270 (Para 52)
- State of U.P. v. Arezzo Developers (P) Ltd., (2016) 12 SCC 530 (para 53) followed.
- Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali and Anr., (2011) 3 SCC 537 (Para 49) distinguished.
List of Cases Referred to
- Commissioner of Customs v. Sayed Ali and Anr. (2011) 3 SCC 537 (para 37)
- Union of India v. VICCO Laboratories (2007) 13 SCC 270 (para 52)
- State of U.P. v. Arezzo Developers (P) Ltd. (2016) 12 SCC 530 (para 53).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
