The ex-parte adjudication passed by Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of powers vested under section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is valid. There is no defect exists in the exercise of power made by the Deputy Commissioner. The challenge raised in the present petition thus fails. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Proper Officer --The petitioner challenged the ex-parte adjudication order dated 07.08.2021 passed under section 74 (9) of the Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2018-2019 on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction with the respondent to issue a notice, conduct proceedings and pass the impugned adjudication order under Section 74 . Since no delegation of power existed in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, the adjudication proceedings initiated and concluded by that authority lacked inherent jurisdiction. The court observed respondent- Deputy Commissioner is an officer of the State Tax whose function assignment has been made in terms of section 2(91) read with sections 4(2) and 5(3) of the Act, by virtue of Office Order dated 01.07.2017 read with further Office Order dated 19.11.2018. Thus no defect exists in the exercise of power made by the Deputy Commissioner.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.
The ex-parte adjudication passed by Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of powers vested under section 74(9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is valid. There is no defect exists in the exercise of power made by the Deputy Commissioner. The challenge raised in the present petition thus fails. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Proper Officer --The petitioner challenged the ex-parte adjudication order dated 07.08.2021 passed under section 74 (9) of the Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2018-2019 on the ground of lack of inherent jurisdiction with the respondent to issue a notice, conduct proceedings and pass the impugned adjudication order under Section 74 . Since no delegation of power existed in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, the adjudication proceedings initiated and concluded by that authority lacked inherent jurisdiction. The court observed respondent- Deputy Commissioner is an officer of the State Tax whose function assignment has been made in terms of section 2(91) read with sections 4(2) and 5(3) of the Act, by virtue of Office Order dated 01.07.2017 read with further Office Order dated 19.11.2018. Thus no defect exists in the exercise of power made by the Deputy Commissioner.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the petition.