Parties: M/s. Sudhakar Traders Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Facts – 

• The Petitioner, M/s. Sudhakar Traders, is engaged in supply of iron and steel purchased from the resident registered taxable persons. On scrutiny of returns filed for the period April 2019 to March 2020 and April 2020 to March 2021, suppression of sales turnover in the returns submitted by the petitioner was found.
• Accordingly, issued notices of intimation dated 28.02.2023 regarding the discrepancies in Form GST ASMT-10 under Rule 99(1) of the AGPST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act and called for the payment of the due tax/ explanation.

Issue – 

• Whether the notice issued is by proper officer?

Order – 

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the powers conferred under G.O.Ms.Nos.269 and 504 are independent and exclusive and they are in aid to the Tax department but not in derogation to Section 72(2) and, there is no conflict between the powers and functions of the V&E Department and the power of Chief Commissioner to make requisition to the Government under Section 72(2) of the APGST Act.
• The respondent who issued the impugned notices is the Deputy Commissioner (ST) but not the Chief Commissioner. Therefore, in order to issue the impugned notices, the respondent requires the authorization of the Chief Commissioner assigning the task of issuing notices under Rule 99 r/w Section 61 of the Act.
• In the impugned notices, neither any reference is made about such authorization, nor it was filed separately in the Court. Therefore, it was held that the two impugned notices suffer the vice of lack of authorization by the Proper Officer i.e., Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside.
• However, it will not preclude the Chief Commissioner, or the officer authorized by him to issue fresh notices under Rule 99 of the APGST Rules r/w Section 61 of the APGST Act.