Whether the Superintendent can pass the order beyond the jurisdictional monetary limits prescribed?

No, the Honorable Allahabad Hight Court in the case of Mansoori Enterprises v. Union of India [Writ Tax No. 35 of 2024 dated 23.02.2023] held that as per Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018, power of the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax & Central Excise is limited to the matter not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/- and in the present case the amount involved is more than Rs. 16,00,000/- and consequently, the order passed by the Superintendent is without jurisdiction. Hence, the said order was declared without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

The Honorable Allahabad High Court observed that the Superintendent lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned Order since the amount involved exceeded the limits set in Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dated 09.02.2018. The Honourable Court held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed, also the Court granted liberty to the Respondent to initiate fresh proceedings by the law.

Author’s Comments

In this statute, there is a ‘Proper Officer’ for every section and every action under the law. The officer who is empowered to grant registration is not the Proper officer to do audit (most likely), those who can come for audit, cannot come for proceedings under section 67 of the Act. The Proper officer who can do audit and inspection cannot be a Proper officer to adjudicate. Just because statutory duties are being performed, even if there is strong suspicion of revenue leakage, except by following the due process of invoking specific powers conferred within specific boundaries of the law, these proceedings are in as much illegal. The Law of administration states that what power is given to be a particular thing, that thing must be done in that particular manner or not at all.

Taxpayers before replying to any proceedings, “Validity of Jurisdiction” must be tested and confirmed. And if there is any doubt, the Proper Officer must explain the exercise of jurisdiction when validity of notice is questioned is view of the mandate in section 160(2) of the Act.