The Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs ( CBIC )’s Legal Cell yesterday issued instructions to all Principal Chief Commissioners & Director Generals/ Chief Commissioners & Director Generals of Customs & GST, regarding the suo motu transfer of Authorizations on behalf of the Union of India by the Authorized Commissioners.
The CBIC recently noted that some Field Commissioners who have been authorized to represent for Union of India before the High Courts have been suo motu transferring authorizations to other commissioners. The Board in its instruction stated that such suo motu amendment/transfer of authorization may critically impact the interests of the Revenue before the High Courts specifically if the Petitions were related to GST and the decision may have all India ramifications.
As Para 1(c) of the Instruction vide S.No. 275/65/2013-CX.8A dated 19.06.2015, it states that in case where in the petition filed before the High Court, no jurisdictional Commissioner/Officer is made respondent, the authorization is issued in the name of the Nodal Commissioner in whose jurisdiction the bench of the High Court where the petition is filed, is located. Another Master instruction on Defense against Writ Petitions/ PILs relating to GST states that the CBIC was obligated to authorize principal commissioner/commissioner to defend the Union of India before the high Courts and that no transfer of authorization should be done on unilateral basis. It has directed the commissioners make a reference to the Commissioner (Legal) clearly outlining the reasons for change in the Authorization.
The instant instruction also requires commissioners to make reference to the Board for any change in Authorization with cogent reasons for the change. as per the instruction the commissioners are not allowed to transfer/amend the authorization without the express approval of the Board.
The instruction was issued when the Board realized that some of the Field Commissioners were suo motu transferring the Authorizations on the pretext that the Petitioner is falling under the Jurisdiction of some other Commissioner or is registered with respective State tax authorities, as the case may be.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
