Petition challenging GSTAT eligibility relaxation dismissed as proviso to Section 110(d) empowers State to relax criteria when no Group A officers are available

Case Summary

Case Title: Amit Kashyap v. Principal Secretary, State Taxes and Excise, Govt. of H.P. & Ors.
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Petition No.: CWP No. 15550 of 2024
Date of Judgement: 03.04.2025 (Reserved on 02.04.2025)
Category of Dispute: Eligibility criteria for appointment of Technical Member (State), GSTAT
Relevant Section: Section 110(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017

Facts (Paras 2–6)

The petitioner, a retired IAS officer with more than 25 years in Group ‘A’ service and 3+ years as Additional Commissioner (Excise & Taxation), challenged Notification dated 19.10.2024, Corrigendum dated 21.11.2024, and Revised Vacancy Circular dated 13.11.2024. He contended these were ultra vires the CGST Act, 2017 since Group ‘A’ officers (like him) were available in the State, and hence no relaxation could be granted.

The State argued that no officer in State services had completed 25 years in Group ‘A’, hence relaxation was approved by GST Council to consider Class-I Gazetted officers with 25 years of service. Respondents 3 and 4 (GST Council and Department of Revenue) confirmed that relaxation was granted based on the State’s proposal.

Questions before Court

1. Whether the State Government could relax eligibility conditions for Technical Member (State) under Section 110(1)(d) when an All-India Service officer with required service was available?

2. Whether the impugned notification and corrigendum were ultra vires the CGST Act, 2017?

Observations (Paras 7–15)

• Section 110(1)(d) requires 25 years in Group ‘A’ (or equivalent) plus 3 years’ taxation/finance experience.

• The proviso permits relaxation for State Government officers where no officer has 25 years in Group ‘A’. This relaxation does not apply to All-India Service officers.

• The petitioner’s contention was misplaced as relaxation for State officers is unaffected by the presence of IAS officers.

• Similar relaxations had been granted in 10 other States, showing a consistent policy.

• Extract from the 49th GST Council meeting showed conscious decision to balance Supreme Court’s R. Gandhi judgment with ground realities of State cadres.

• The petitioner’s argument that eligibility was diluted to favour a group was rejected, as relaxations were uniform across States.

• Earlier, All-India Service officers were not even eligible until amendments to Section 110(1)(d).

Judgement (Para 16)

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned notifications were validly issued under Section 110(1)(d) proviso and relaxation applied only to State officers, not All-India Service officers. No costs were awarded.

Table of Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway)

For trade and industry, this decision clarifies that challenges to GSTAT appointments on the ground of relaxation in eligibility will not succeed if the State has acted under the statutory proviso of Section 110(1)(d) with GST Council’s approval. The ruling underscores that IAS officers’ presence does not restrict States from extending eligibility to long-serving State cadre officers.

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”