Case Details: Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner, (Intelligence & Enforcement), Kozhikode (2025) 37 Centax 156 (Ker.)
Fact of the Case
The petitioner, being the assessee, challenged the jurisdiction of officers of the State GST Department who had issued an authorisation and a show cause notice (SCN) in connection with proceedings initiated under section 74 of the CGST Act for the determination of tax. It was submitted that section 6(1) of the CGST Act contemplated authorisation of officers appointed under the State GST Act or the Union Territory GST Act as proper officers for CGST purposes only upon the Government specifying conditions for such exercise of powers on the recommendation of the GST Council through a notification. In the absence of any such notification prescribing conditions, it was contended that the authorisation issued and the SCN initiated by State GST officers were without jurisdiction and invalid in law. Reliance was placed on a restrictive interpretation of section 6 to argue that cross-empowerment was contingent upon a future governmental act and did not operate automatically. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The Kerala High Court held that section 6(1) of the CGST Act itself contains a clear legislative mandate providing for cross-empowerment of officers appointed under the State GST Act or the Union Territory GST Act to function as proper officers for the purposes of the CGST Act. The Court held that this statutory empowerment is presently operative and unqualified, though expressly made subject to such conditions as the Government may, on the recommendation of the Council, specify by notification in the future. It was held that the absence of a notification prescribing conditions does not negate or suspend the operation of the statutory mandate, but only indicates that no qualifying conditions have yet been imposed. Applying this interpretation, the Court held that the authorisation issued and the SCN initiated by the State GST officers for proceedings under section 74 of the CGST Act were within jurisdiction and legally valid, and the challenge raised by the petitioner was accordingly rejected.
List of Cases Cited
- Indo International Tobacco Ltd. v. Vivek Prasad, Additional Director General (DGGI) — (2022) 1 Centax 142 (Del.) = 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 403 (Del.) — Followed [Para 6]
- Indo International Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director General DGGI — Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5434 of 2022, decided on 7-11-2022 by Supreme Court — Referred [Para 6]
- Tvl. Vardhan Infrastructure v. Special Secretary, Head of the GST Council Secretariat — (2024) 16 Centax 509 (Mad.) = 2024 (84) G.S.T.L. 443 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 3]
