Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in trading arecanut, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated 25.11.2024, 30.11.2024, 24.12.2024, and a subsequent auction notice, all arising from the interception of a consignment of arecanut. The goods were being transported from Kerala to Delhi when they were intercepted by the fourth respondent, a Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement) under the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on 19.11.2024. The petitioner was unable to generate an e-way bill due to network issues. The fourth respondent ordered physical verification and later extended the time. Summons under Section 70 were issued, and the petitioner appeared and provided a statement. Physical verification was conducted, and eventually a confiscation order was passed, followed by an auction notice. The petitioner contended that the fourth respondent lacked jurisdiction as a proper officer under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, because no notification under Section 4 of the IGST had been issued specifically authorizing him. The State argued that cross-empowerment under Section 6 of the CGST and KGST Acts ipso facto applies to IGST, and no separate notification is needed. The Court, after hearing submissions, reserved the matter solely on the question of jurisdiction. It examined Section 4 of the IGST, Section 6 of the CGST and KGST Acts, and held that Section 4 IGST unambiguously authorizes officers appointed under the State or Central GST Acts to act as proper officers for IGST purposes. The requirement of a notification is only to carve out exceptions, not to confer general authorization. Since no exceptional notification was issued, the fourth respondent was a proper officer, and his actions were within jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Goods and Services Tax - Proper Officer under IGST - Cross Empowerment - Section 4, Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Sections 6, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Sections 6, Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement) to pass orders under the IGST Act, contending that no notification had been issued under Section 4 expressly authorizing State tax officers. The Court held that Section 4 itself provides that officers appointed under the CGST/KGST Acts are authorized to be proper officers for IGST purposes, and a notification is only required to specify exceptions. Since no such exceptional notification was issued, the default cross-empowerment applies, and the officer's actions are valid. Held that the fourth respondent had jurisdiction and the writ petition is dismissed (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the fourth respondent (Commercial Tax Officer) is a proper officer under Section 4 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 in the absence of a specific notification authorizing him, and consequently whether the orders passed by him are without jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the fourth respondent is a proper officer under Section 4 of the IGST Act, 2017, as officers appointed under the CGST/KGST Acts are automatically authorized as proper officers for IGST purposes. A notification is only required to carve out exceptions, not to confer general authorization. Therefore, all actions of the fourth respondent are within jurisdiction.
Law Points
- cross empowerment under Section 4 IGST
- proper officer definition
- notification requirement only for exceptions
- ipso facto authorization of CGST/KGST officers for IGST purposes
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (03) 48
Writ Petition No.100038 of 2025 (T-RES)
Sameer Gupta, Gayatri S.R., Gangadhar J.M., Sharad V. Magadum, Girish S. Hulmani
SLM Stationery, through its proprietor Mr. Abdul Salam
Union of India, Goods and Services Tax Council, Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement), Commercial Tax Officer (Enforcement)-2
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of extension of time for physical verification, confiscation order, and auction notice in relation to intercepted transport of arecanut under GST laws.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of orders dated 25.11.2024, 30.11.2024, and 24.12.2024, and a direction for release of goods and vehicle without condition, alleging the fourth respondent lacked jurisdiction as a proper officer under IGST.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's goods (arecanut) were intercepted, and subsequent orders for physical verification extension, confiscation, and auction were passed; the petitioner contended the officer acted without jurisdiction because no notification under Section 4 of IGST had been issued specifically authorizing the officer as a proper officer under IGST.
Issues
Whether the fourth respondent (Commercial Tax Officer) is a proper officer under Section 4 of the IGST Act, 2017 in the absence of a specific notification issued by the Government of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's submission: The fourth respondent is not a proper officer under Section 4 of IGST because no notification has been issued authorizing him; thus, all his actions are without jurisdiction and non est. Reliance placed on TVL Vardhan Infrastructures v. Head of the GST Council Secretariat.
Respondent State's submission: Cross empowerment under Section 6 of CGST and KGST ipso facto applies to IGST; no separate notification is required. The officer is authorized and proper officer. Additionally, the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 4 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, officers appointed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act or respective State Goods and Services Tax Act are ipso facto authorized to act as proper officers for the purposes of the IGST Act. A notification is required only if the Government intends to carve out exceptions to this default cross-empowerment. In the absence of any such exceptional notification, a State tax officer does not require a separate specific notification to exercise powers under the IGST Act.
Judgment Excerpts
Section 4 of the IGST unequivocally mandates that the officer appointed under the KSGT or the Union Territory are authorised to be the proper officer for the purpose of IGST, subject to exceptions and conditions as the government shall on the recommendation of the Council, would specify by issuance of a notification.
Therefore, a notification or recommendation should ensue only when the government wants to carve out exceptions to the definition of ‘proper officer’ under Section 4 of the IGST. The normal rule is that, the officers appointed under the CGST or KGST to be the proper officers under Section 4 of the IGST.
Procedural History
The petitioner's consignment of arecanut was intercepted on 19.11.2024 by the fourth respondent. Orders for physical verification and extension were passed on 25.11.2024 and 30.11.2024. Summons under Section 70 CGST was issued on 26.11.2024. Physical verification conducted on 04.12.2024. Show cause notice issued 10.12.2024, petitioner replied on 16.12.2024. Confiscation order passed on 24.12.2024. Auction notice issued on 02.01.2025. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging these orders. The matter was heard and reserved on 24.02.2025, and judgment pronounced on 05.03.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: 6, 70
- Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: 6, 70
- Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017: 4, 20
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
