Madhya Pradesh High Court Holds GST Order Invalid Where Proper Officer Not Notified as Required Under Section 6(1) of UTGST Act

Madhya Pradesh High Court delivered a significant ruling on the jurisdiction of GST authorities in Writ Petition Nos. 2510/2026 and 2532/2026, addressing whether an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax could validly impose tax liability without being properly notified as a ‘Proper Officer’ under the relevant GST statutes.

The petitioner challenged an order dated 30.12.2025, which imposed a liability of over Rs. 7 crore, contending that the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Anti-Evasion Bureau, Indore, who issued the order, was not the ‘Proper Officer’ as defined under Section 2(91) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner argued that the absence of proper authorization rendered the order without jurisdiction.

The State, in response, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The State also asserted that the authority was competent and justified the order based on findings of wrongful Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims and violations of Section 16(2)(c) of the M.P. GST Act, 2017.

The petitioner, in rebuttal, submitted additional documents, including a tax audit report and an order from the Commissioner, Commercial Tax, M.P., highlighting that the pecuniary jurisdiction for adjudication by an Assistant Commissioner was capped at an annual turnover of Rs. 20 crores, with higher turnovers falling under the Deputy Commissioner.

The Court, after hearing both parties, observed that while alternative remedies exist, there is no absolute bar to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when an order is passed without jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademark.

Examining the statutory framework, the Court referred to Section 2(91) of the CGST Act, which defines ‘Proper Officer’, and Section 6 of the Union Territory GST Act, 2017 (UTGST Act), which allows State GST officers to be authorized as Proper Officers, but only subject to conditions specified by government notification based on Council recommendations.

Upon specific inquiry, the State’s counsel admitted that no such Council recommendation or notification existed appointing the respondent Assistant Commissioner as a Proper Officer for the relevant functions. The Court held that, in the absence of such notification, the officer lacked the requisite jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the order dated 30.12.2025 as being without jurisdiction and granted liberty to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Both writ petitions were allowed and disposed of on this basis.

This decision underscores the necessity for strict compliance with statutory requirements regarding the appointment and notification of GST officers, reaffirming that orders passed by unauthorized officers are void and unenforceable.