Receiving a GST or Income Tax notice usually triggers an immediate question:
“What does the Department want, and how should I reply?”
“Does the officer who issued this notice have the legal authority and jurisdiction to initiate this particular proceeding?”
In the previous part of our Tax Notice Series, we discussed how to read a tax notice during the first five minutes. The central principle was simple:
Do not start drafting the reply immediately. First identify the notice.
Identify the provision, relevant period, issuing officer, allegation, material relied upon, documents sought and response deadline.
Once the issuing officer has been identified, the next stage is to verify his or her Authority and Jurisdiction.
A useful framework is:
PERSON → POWER → PROCEEDING
Let us understand what this means.
1. PERSON — Who issued the notice?
Start with the signature or authentication portion of the notice.
Record:
- Name and designation of the officer
- Commissionerate/Charge
- Division/Range/Ward, wherever relevant
- Office address
- DIN/Reference Number, where applicable
- Section and Rule mentioned in the notice
Do not assume jurisdiction merely because the notice has been generated through an official portal.
The real legal inquiry begins with the next question.
2. POWER — Where does the officer get this particular power from?
Under GST, the concept of a “proper officer” is important.
Section 2(91) of the CGST Act defines “proper officer” in relation to a function to mean the Commissioner or officer of central tax who is assigned that function by the Commissioner in the Board.
This makes one distinction extremely important:
Being a GST officer and being the proper officer for a particular statutory function are not necessarily the same inquiry.
Sections 4 and 5 of the CGST Act deal with officers and their powers.
But the analysis should not stop with the Act.
Depending upon the proceeding, one may also need to examine:
- Notifications
- CBIC Circulars
- Assignment of functions
- Jurisdiction Orders
- Subsequent amendments
- Special authorisations
For example, CBIC Circular No. 3/3/2017-GST dated 5 July 2017 contains an important mapping of different designations of Central Tax officers with functions under various provisions of the CGST Act and Rules.
Therefore, when examining a notice, compare:
Designation of Officer × Statutory Function Exercised
The correct question is not merely:
“Is this person a Superintendent?”
The better question is:
“Has this category of officer been assigned the statutory function being exercised through this notice?”
3. TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION — Can this officer exercise the power over this taxpayer?
Once functional authority has been examined, move to territorial jurisdiction.
Notification No. 02/2017-Central Tax dated 19 June 2017 is one of the foundational notifications concerning territorial jurisdiction of Central Tax officers.
However, a practitioner should not blindly rely upon an old notification downloaded from the internet.
Jurisdictions may subsequently be amended or reorganised.
Therefore, always verify the notification, amendment, jurisdiction order or reorganisation applicable on the relevant date.
Compare:
Officer’s Jurisdiction × Taxpayer’s Jurisdiction
Check the Commissionerate, Division and Range, where applicable, against the taxpayer’s registered/principal place of business and the applicable jurisdictional arrangement.
4. FUNCTIONAL JURISDICTION — Having territorial jurisdiction may still not be enough
An officer may have jurisdiction over a taxpayer geographically, but another question remains:
Does the officer have authority to exercise this particular statutory function?
This distinction becomes particularly important in proceedings relating to scrutiny, audit, investigation, demand and adjudication.
For legacy demand proceedings under Sections 73 and 74, for example, CBIC Circular No. 31/05/2018-GST dealt with assignment of proper officers and monetary competence.
It was subsequently amended, including through Circular No. 169/01/2022-GST, which dealt with adjudication of certain show-cause notices issued by DGGI officers and the jurisdiction of specified adjudicating authorities.
Therefore, jurisdiction is not always merely geographical.
It may involve:
**Territorial Jurisdiction
+ Functional Jurisdiction
+ Monetary Competence
+ Special Assignment**
depending upon the statutory proceeding involved.
5. What if Central and State GST authorities are proceeding on the same subject matter?
This is another area that should never be ignored.
Section 6 of the CGST Act deals with authorisation of State Tax and Union Territory Tax officers as proper officers in specified circumstances.
Section 6(2)(b) becomes particularly relevant where proceedings have already been initiated by a State/UT GST proper officer on the same subject matter.
Therefore, if a taxpayer receives another notice relating to an issue already being examined by another GST administration, do not immediately assume either that the second proceeding is valid or that it is automatically invalid.
First compare:
- Parties
- Tax period
- Issue involved
- Subject matter
- Date of initiation
- Authority initiating each proceeding
Then examine Section 6 and the applicable legal position.
The expression “same subject matter” can itself require careful factual and legal analysis.
6. Income Tax: Jurisdiction must also be examined at the beginning
The same discipline is important in Income Tax proceedings.
From 1 April 2026, the Income-tax Act, 2025 is in force.
Section 242 deals with the jurisdiction of Assessing Officers.
An especially important aspect is that an objection to jurisdiction cannot necessarily be kept pending indefinitely.
Section 242 contains provisions governing when the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer may be questioned and the mechanism for resolving such a dispute.
Therefore, one potentially serious mistake is to keep seeking adjournments, submit detailed documents and argue the merits of the assessment, only to raise jurisdiction for the first time at a very late stage.
Where a genuine jurisdictional issue exists, it should be examined at the earliest stage.
For proceedings governed by the earlier Income-tax Act, 1961, the corresponding old-law provisions, including Section 124 where applicable, must be examined.
The first question in 2026 may therefore sometimes be:
Which Act applies to this proceeding?
Only after answering that should the correct jurisdiction provision be selected.
7. Create an “Authority & Jurisdiction File”
Whenever jurisdiction appears doubtful, preserve the evidence immediately.
Keep copies of:
- Original notice PDF
- Portal-generated notice
- DIN/Reference Number
- Officer’s name and designation
- Office/charge details
- Relevant Section and Rule
- Applicable Notification
- Assignment/Jurisdiction Order
- Relevant Circular
- Subsequent amendment
- Available portal jurisdiction details
- Earlier notice/proceeding on the same subject matter, if any
Why is this important?
Because officers may be transferred.
Administrative jurisdictions may be reorganised.
Web pages may change.
What ultimately matters is the legal position on the date on which the statutory power was exercised.
A good litigation file should therefore preserve not only the notice but also the material necessary to demonstrate the jurisdictional position applicable at that time.
8. What should you do if a jurisdictional defect is found?
Avoid vague drafting such as:
“The notice is illegal, bad in law and void ab initio.”
That may state a conclusion without establishing its foundation.
A stronger objection should identify:
1. The officer who issued the notice;
2. The statutory provision invoked;
3. The applicable notification/order/assignment;
4. The jurisdiction allegedly available under that document;
5. The precise mismatch or defect; and
6. The legal consequence being asserted.
Depending upon the facts and applicable law, the objection may begin along these lines:
“At the threshold, and without prejudice to the submissions on merits, the Noticee respectfully raises an objection regarding the authority/jurisdiction of the officer issuing the impugned notice…”
The exact language should, of course, depend upon the facts of the case.
It may also be prudent in appropriate cases to preserve the jurisdictional objection without prejudice while separately answering the allegations on merits.
That prevents the taxpayer from casually conceding jurisdiction while also ensuring that the substantive defence is not unnecessarily abandoned.
The Three-Question Test
Whenever you receive a GST or Income Tax notice, remember:
PERSON
Who issued it?
POWER
Which statutory provision, notification, assignment or order gives that officer this particular power?
PROCEEDING
Can that power legally be exercised against this taxpayer, for this period, subject matter and proceeding?
Only after these questions have been examined should the discussion move comfortably towards the merits.
This takes us back to the Draupadi Test discussed earlier.
Draupadi’s fundamental question in the dice-hall was not merely whether the action against her was fair.
She questioned something logically prior:
Did the person purporting to exercise that power still possess the authority to do so?
In modern tax practice, that question is not answered by mythology.
It is answered by the:
Act → Section → Rule → Notification → Assignment/Jurisdiction Order → Facts.
That distinction is crucial.
Indian epics can help us remember the question.
The statute must provide the answer.
What comes next?
Suppose our verification shows that the officer is properly authorised and has jurisdiction.
Does that mean the officer can ask anything under that proceeding?
No.
That takes us to the next part of this Tax Notice Series:
“The Officer Has Jurisdiction — But What Are the Limits of His Power?”
We will examine the Scope & Preconditions Test.
We will practically discuss:
When does a statutory power actually arise?
What is the permissible scope of scrutiny?
Can a Section 61 scrutiny be converted into a general inquiry into books?
How do scrutiny, audit, investigation and adjudication differ?
What statutory trigger should be visible in the notice?
And if the officer appears to cross the boundary of the proceeding, how should the objection be preserved in the reply?
The purpose of this series is not merely to draft one tax reply.
It is to build a repeatable system:
READ → IDENTIFY → VERIFY → TEST → PREPARE → REPLY
Because a strong tax reply does not begin with typing.
It begins with asking whether the person asking the question had the legal authority to ask it.
— CA Chandra Kishore Bajpai
CKB Finance Decode
Disclaimer: This article is intended for professional education and general information. Jurisdiction and validity of a tax proceeding depend upon the applicable law, relevant period, facts, notifications, orders and judicial precedents. The applicable legal position should be independently verified before taking a position in any specific proceeding.
Suggested Hashtags
#TaxNotice #GSTNotice #IncomeTaxNotice #GST #IncomeTax #TaxLitigation #TaxLaw #Jurisdiction #ProperOfficer #GSTLitigation #TaxProfessional #DraupadiTest #CKBFinanceDecode
SEO Keywords
Tax Notice Authority and Jurisdiction, GST Proper Officer, GST Notice Jurisdiction, Income Tax Notice Jurisdiction, Section 242 Income Tax Act 2025, GST Section 6, CGST Section 5, Proper Officer under GST, GST jurisdiction notification, GST show cause notice validity, how to verify GST officer jurisdiction, Income Tax Assessing Officer jurisdiction, tax notice reply, jurisdiction objection in tax notice, CKB Finance Decode