Exercise of Delegation Powers by State Officers under Section 5(3) of the Act

Case Details:

Issue- In the above case, the petitioner has challenged the ex-parte adjudication order dated 7-8-2021 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-I, Shajahanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deputy Commissioner), purportedly in exercise of powers vested under section 74 (9) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 alleging lack of jurisdiction over the order passed as no delegation of power existed in favour of Deputy Commissioner under Section 5(3) of the Act.

Held- It was held that the Commissioner has been granted a general power to sub-delegate all or any of his powers/functions to any other officer who may be subordinate to him. It would include within its plain ambit, the sub-delegation of function jurisdiction or the power to act as the “proper officer”, to adjudicate a dispute under section 74 of the Act and  section 5(3) is the source of the power to sub-delegate the function-jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner, to be exercised in favour of any officer subordinate to him. Neither there exists any procedure or stipulation prescribed by law with respect to the mode or the manner in which that power to sub-delegate may be exercised nor the Commissioner was required to obtain any approval of the State Government in that regard nor there exists any requirement in law prescribing issuance of a notification etc. to evidence a valid sub-delegation made under section 5(3) of the Act. Therefore, the fact, composite Office Orders 1-7-2017 and 19-11-2018 were issued by the Commissioner, makes no difference to the validity of the power exercised. Non-recital of section 5(3) of the Act in either of those orders is inconsequential and even extraneous to the valid exercise of power made by the Commissioner. The power was admittedly existing and it is seen to have been exercised. It is not shown to have been exercised in contravention of any statutory provision or principle of law. Hence, the validity of the power exercised would remain by established firm and undoubted. Thus, no defect exists in the exercise of power made by the Deputy Commissioner. The challenge raised in the present petition thus fails. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.