JUDGMENT

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - Constitutional validity of Annexure P-1 Circular dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, assigning functions of 'Proper Officer' under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGST Act') and Annexure P-2 Gazette Notification dated 01.07.2017 are put to challenge in these writ petitions. The consequential steps pursued by the 6th Respondent, in the State of Jharkhand, in exercise of the power of 'Proper Officer' stated as conferred as per Annexure P-1 and P-2 and in issuing summons to the Petitioners instructing to appear to take statements/to adduce evidence in connection with the alleged incriminating circumstances, despite the fact that the place of registration of the Petitioners is within the State of Chhattisgarh, are also sought to be interdicted, as incidental relief.

2. The basic challenge is with reference to the alleged lack of power of the 2nd Respondent for issuing Annexure P-2 Notification purported to be in exercise of Section 3(2), read with Section 5 of the CGST Act; as the said power is exclusively vested upon the Central Government and not the 2nd Respondent/Board. It is further pointed out that, the appointment of 'Proper Officer' as envisaged under the statute can be effected only by the 'Commissioner in the Board' {as evident from sub-section (2) of Section 168 of the CGST Act} and further that, it can only be done by way of a Notification in the official gazette as envisaged under Section 167 of the CGST Act. Annexure P-1 is only a Circular and there is not a gazette notification. It is the further case of the Petitioners, that the 2nd Respondent/Board, as per Annexure P-2 has identified multiple authorities to act as Central Tax Officers under the CGST Act and they are exercising the powers of 'Proper Officer' with reference to Annexure P-1 and P-2; by virtue of which the Petitioners are being harassed and they have to appear before different Officers placed in different states, which is totally alien to the scheme of the statute. The Petitioners are required to have registration only in the 'place of supply' as envisaged under Section 22 of the CGST Act and hence, it can only be in Chhattisgarh, contend the Petitioners. It is also pointed out that the scheme of the CGST Act is 'One Assessee, One Subject Matter, One Officer' and not 'One Assessee, One Subject Matter and Different Officers'; which otherwise would lead to chaos and is contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Syed Ali and Another, (2011) 3 SCC 537 .

3. Writ Petition (T) No. 77 of 2019 is stated as the lead case and the parties and proceedings are referred to as given therein, except where it is separately referred to.

4. We have heard Shri Shri Kartik Kurmy, Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava and Shri Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the respective Petitioners, Shri B. Gopa Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the Central Government and Shri Maneesh Sharma, the learned counsel representing the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, at length on different dates including the hearings held on 16.10.2019, 22.10.2019 and 06.11.2019.

5. The Petitioners are doing business, in respect of which tax is payable under the CGST Act and the allied enactments. It is stated that the Petitioners were effecting the supplies to the various States in the country from the place of business situated in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is also stated that the Petitioners do not have any place of business in any other States, that they do not have any place of residence in such States and as such, by virtue of the mandate under Section 22 read with Section 25 of the CGST Act, the Petitioners have registered themselves under the CGST Act in the State of Chhattisgarh. It is further pointed out th