Mohit Kirana Store Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
Date: June 30, 2025
Subject Matter
Interim Stay on Circular 3/3/2017 Delegating Summons Power to GST Superintendent
Summary
In the case of Mohit Kirana Store Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, the Rajasthan High Court upheld an interim stay order concerning a circular that delegated the power to issue summons under the CGST Act, 2017 to a Superintendent. The Court noted that the revenue authorities claimed the circular was issued by the Commissioner, who had the authority to delegate such powers. However, the petitioner argued that the circular explicitly stated the delegation originated from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which does not have that power according to Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, as this power resides with the Commissioner within the Board, not the Board itself. The High Court found that the petitioner demonstrated a strong prima facie case, leading to the rejection of applications to vacate the stay. The interim order remains in effect, and the court has prioritized the petition for a final hearing in the near future.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Heard on applications (Nos. 1/2022 and 2/2022) for vacating stay order passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the revenue would vehemently submit that the circular impugned was, in fact, issued by the Commissioner and not by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (for short ‘the Board’) and, therefore, the delegation of power in the hands of Superintendent for exercising power of issuance of summons is perfectly in accordance with law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that impugned circular dated 05.07.2017 clearly recites that the power of delegation has been exercised by the Board whereas the Board does not have that power and power of delegation is exercisable only with reference to the provisions contained in Section 2, sub-section (91) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 by the Commissioner in the Board as distinguished from the Board itself.
Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case which led to passing of interim order in its favour which need not be disturbed.
Applications (Nos. 1/2022 and 2/2022) for vacation of stay der are rejected.
Stay order passed by this Court is made absolute.
However, taking into consideration the importance of the issue, we are inclined to set down the petition for final hearing itself.
List this petition for final hearing in the week after next.