The Madras High Court held that the GST commissioner could designate the proper officers for the assessment under the TNGST ( Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax ) Act, 2017.
The taxpayer Abhinaya Constructions contested the impugned GST orders because the commissioner of GST had no authority to charge the power to the third respondent (State tax officer), who was wrongly discovered as the second respondent in the respective writ petitions.
The counsel of the applicant claimed that the term “Adjudicating Authority” u/s 2(4) of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TNGST Act) does not contain the Commissioner, Revisional Authority, or the Authority for Advance Ruling. Consequently, the delegation of authority u/s 5 of the GST Enactments, leading to the issuance of the contested orders, was asserted to be legally invalid.
It was remarked by the court that the claim was revealed to be inconsistent with the framework of the GST Act. The GST act needs that assessments be performed via a proper officer, a designation that the Commissioner can appoint as per Section 2(91) of the TNGST Act. The delegation of authority as defined in Notification No. 4 of 2017 u/s 5(1) of the TNGST Act was considered suitable, therefore rejecting the claim of the petitioner.
The challenge pertinent to the SCN has been addressed by the bench of Justice C. Saravanan citing that these cases must be analysed via the appellate authority.
It was rendered by the court that the applicant attains another remedy under section 107 of the GST Act and was allotted the liberty to file a legal plea within 30 days from the order receipt. The petition has been dismissed by the court.
| Case Title | Abhinaya Constructions Vs State of Tamil Nadu |
| Citation | W.P.(MD) Nos.24974 to 24979 of 2023 |
| Date | 10.06.2024 |
| For the Petitioner | Mr J.V.Niranjan |
| For Respondents | Mr Veera.Kathiravan, Mr R.Sureshkumar |
| Madras High Court | Read Order |
