Delhi HC Refuses to Interfere With Validity of CBIC Circular on “Proper Officer” Powers Under CGST Act [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the validity of the CBIC Circular on assigning “proper officer” functions and said that the circular cannot be struck down unless the petitioner proves it was issued without authority.

Lovelesh Singhal, proprietor of Shivani Overseas, filed a writ petition challenging Circular No. 3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 and summons dated 03.11.2025 issued under Section 70 of the CGST Act. The summons was issued in an inquiry connected with Midas Marketing Inc., calling him to appear for statement and produce bank statement, sales invoices and ledger.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Board has no power to assign duties to proper officers. They argued that as per Section 2(91) read with Section 2(25), only the “Commissioner in the Board” can assign such functions, not the Board.

On this basis the counsel argued the circular is without authority and the summons also becomes invalid. They also said the summons date was 10.11.2025 but it was served on 11.11.2025.

Read More: Omission of IGST Section 13(8)(b): How Budget 2026 Resets Taxation of Intermediary Services

The department argued that Section 168(1) allows the Board to issue directions for uniformity and the circular was signed by the Commissioner (GST), meaning it was issued by the Commissioner in the Board with Board approval under Section 168(2). The department also agreed for rescheduling the date of appearance.

The Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Ajay Digpaul observed that there is presumption in law that such circular is valid and the burden is on the petitioner to prove it is invalid.

The court observed that the commissioner is part of the Board so there is no reason to disbelieve that the circular was issued through the Commissioner in the Board and approved by the Board as required. The petitioner also failed to produce material to show otherwise.

In view of this, the court dismissed the challenge to the circular. However, it partly allowed the petition only for rescheduling the summons and permitted the petitioner to appear before the competent officer.