1. Under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 'proper officer' implies assignment of function by the Commissioner in the Board. While statutory provision does not prescribe the instrument of assignment, Sections 3 (classes of officers), 5(3) (delegation), and 167 (notification of power transfer) collectively establish Notification as the statutory vehicle for vesting a class of officers with specific adjudicatory functions. Section 168(1) regarding circulars for uniformity is administrative and cannot override the specific conferment of jurisdiction via Notification. Thus, a Circular cannot independently create jurisdiction but may operate to select a specific officer from a class already vested with jurisdiction by Notification.
2. The administrative Circular providing for the selection of a Common Adjudicating Authority based on the 'highest amount of demand' in composite SCN cases does not infringe Article 14. The criterion is objective, quantifiable, uniform, and possesses a rational nexus with ensuring a single adjudication of a common cause of action arising from one investigation, thereby avoiding conflicting findings. It does not amount to sub-delegation as the officer applies an existing statutory criterion.
3. The writ court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily barred where an efficacious alternative appeal remedy exists. However, an exception is made for challenges to the very existence of jurisdiction or bad-faith demands involving fraud and wilful suppression. In this case, since the jurisdictional foundation of the Common Adjudicating Authority is validly traceable to Notifications, the exception is inapplicable. Petitioners constricted to merits are directed to invoke Section 107 of the Act.
4. The appellate forum against the Common Adjudicating Authority is the Commissioner (Appeals) having territorial jurisdiction over the Principal Commissioner under whom the Common Adjudicating Authority is posted, as per Notification Table III; the Circular does not alter this hierarchy.
