Sanganeriya Spinning Mills Limited VS Union Of India

The case at hand involves a challenge to the validity of Section 6(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) by the petitioner. Section 6(1) authorizes officers appointed under the State Goods and Service Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act to act as proper officers for the purposes of the GST Act, subject to conditions specified by the government.

The petitioner argues that the GST Council had already delineated the jurisdiction of State and Central authorities through a notification dated September 20, 2017 (No.1 of 2017). Therefore, the State authority lacks jurisdiction to investigate and assess certain amounts in this particular case.

In response, the State contends that the investigation initiated was in line with the decision of the CST Council and was limited to enforcement actions. Additionally, the State argues that the investigation into components related to credit under the Central Sales Tax Act (CST) and State Value Added Tax (VAT) was permissible, especially considering the investigation and orders made pursuant to the TRAN-01 claims for credit under Section 140(3) of the GST Act.

The primary contention against Section 6(1) is its alleged arbitrariness, which the petitioner claims curtails and severely limits the rights to claim input credit and transitional credit. Furthermore, it is argued that the show-cause notice issued in this case violates the provisions of law, particularly Section 6 and Section 73 of the GST Act.

Overall, the case revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 6(1) of the GST Act, with the petitioner challenging its validity on grounds of arbitrariness and limitation of rights, while the State defends its actions based on the authority granted by the GST Council and the necessity of the investigation.

The petitioner in this case challenges the validity of Section 6(1) of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, 2017. Section 6(1) empowers officers appointed under State or Union Territory GST Acts to act as proper officers for GST purposes, subject to conditions specified by the government. The petitioner argues that the GST Council had already delineated jurisdiction between State and Central authorities through a notification, thus limiting the State authority’s jurisdiction in this case.

The State’s argument against the challenge is that the enquiry initiated was limited to enforcement actions and that certain components of claims related to Central Sales Tax (CST) and State Value Added Tax (VAT) were not precluded from investigation. The petitioner also contends that Section 6(1) arbitrarily curtails rights to claim input and transitional credits and that the show-cause notice issued transgressed legal provisions.

However, the court opines that the challenge to Section 6(1) itself has not been adequately made. It acknowledges that the GST Act, enacted post the 101st Constitutional Amendment, aimed to unify the tax structure in the country and established common principles for taxation. Section 6 was enacted to facilitate this complex tax regime, enabling appointed officers to act for both the Centre and States, subject to conditions. The court compares Section 6(2) to a similar provision in the CST Act, indicating the long-standing statutory precedent for such mechanisms.

Regarding the challenge to the circular and show-cause notice, the court views the circular as merely operationalizing the authorization under Section 6(1) and as a matter of policy. It notes that assessment has been completed pursuant to the show-cause notice, further indicating that an appeal process exists for the petitioner.

In light of these circumstances, the court deems it inappropriate to consider the validity of the show-cause notice, given the availability of an alternative appeal remedy for the petitioner.

The petitioner in this case challenges the constitutionality of Section 6(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which authorizes officers appointed under the State Goods and Service Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act to act as proper officers for the purposes of the GST Act, subject to conditions specified by the government. The petitioner argues that the delineation of jurisdiction between state and central authorities by a specific notification means that the state authority lacks jurisdiction in this particular case.

The state, on the other hand, contends that the investigation initiated was in line with the decision of the CST Council and was limited to enforcement actions. They argue that the investigation regarding claims under the Central Sales Tax Act and State Value Added Tax, despite being limited, is not precluded by the provisions of law.

The main contention against Section 6(1) is that it is arbitrary and severely limits the rights to claim input credit and transitional credit. However, the court observes that the challenge to Section 6(1) has not been adequately made. The GST Act, which was enacted to unify the tax structure in the country, created the Goods and Service Tax Council to lay down policies binding on all states and union territories. Section 6 was enacted to enable officers appointed under state and union territory acts to act as proper officers, subject to prescribed conditions by the central government. The court finds that the mechanism established by Section 6(1) is not inherently arbitrary.

Regarding the challenge to the circular and show-cause notice, the court notes that the circular merely implements the authorization under Section 6(1) and is a matter of policy. The assessment has already been completed pursuant to the show-cause notice.

The court decides that it is not appropriate to consider the validity of the show-cause notice, as an alternative remedy by way of an appeal exists for the petitioner. If the petitioner chooses to appeal, it will be decided on its merits.

Ultimately, the writ petition is dismissed.

Download PDF:

For Reference PDF:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: