The Rajasthan High Court has while staying the Circular no. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 which assigns to certain officers, powers to be exercised under various provisions of the CGST Act including permission of summon under Section 70, scheduled the matter for final hearing.
The bench of Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case which led to passing of interim order in its favour which need not be disturbed.
The Petitioner/assesse has challenged a summon issued by the Superintendent of CGST. In the context of this challenge the petitioner also challenged a circular dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs assigning to certain officers, powers to be exercised under various provisions of the CGST Act including permission of summon under Section 70 thereof.
CBIC filed application under article 226(3) for vacating the stay and on 01.07.2025, vehemently argued that circular no. 3/3/2017 has been validly issued. DR further relied on judgment of Gujarat High Court in case of Yasho Industries and Cannon India (After review).
The petitioner argued that circular dated 05.07.2017 clearly recites that the power of delegation has been exercised by the Board whereas the Board does not have that power and power of delegation is exercisable only with reference to the provisions contained in Section 2, sub-section (91) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 by the Commissioner in the Board as distinguished from the Board itself.
The department contended that the circular impugned was, in fact, issued by the Commissioner and not by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (for short ‘the Board’) and, therefore, the delegation of power in the hands of Superintendent for exercising power of issuance of summons is perfectly in accordance with law.
On 28.01.2022, Rajasthan High Court granted the stay on proceedings initiated against the assessee by the Superintendent.
The court prima facie agreed that circular appears to be issued without authority of law, and consequently rejected applications for stay vacation filed by the respondents.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s Mohit Kirana Store Versus Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Another.
Case No.: D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1030/2022
Date: 01/07/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Jatin Harjai Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Kinshuk Jain Advocate
- Real Estate Lawyer Salary in the UAE, United States, and India – 2025 Guide - July 12, 2025
- Free Technical Support Available to Assist CAs with Statutory Audit Queries: ICAI - July 12, 2025
- DGGI Bengaluru Busts Rs. 266 Crore GST Fraud Involving Shell Companies and Fraudulent ITC Claims; Mastermind Arrested - July 12, 2025
