01Facts
The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, purchased Pan Masala and Tobacco from M/s Ram Trading Company. On 25.02.2026, the consignment was intercepted by respondent No. 4 while in transit
p. 2Despite e-invoices and e-way bills being furnished and physical verification showing no quantity discrepancies, the respondent issued a detention order (MOV-06) on the grounds that the documents had been reused from an earlier occasion
¶ 3.1, 3.2A confiscation order (MOV-11) dated 27.03.2026 was passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act, confirming a demand of ₹88,68,728/-, followed by a summary order (DRC-07)
pp. 1-2The petitioner challenged these orders on the basis that State officers lacked the authority to act under the IGST Act without a specific central notification for cross-empowerment
¶ 4.102Issues
i.1. Whether State Tax officers are authorized to act as "proper officers" under the IGST Act in the absence of a specific notification by the Central Government under Section 4 of the IGST Act
¶ 7ii.2. Whether the petitioner is rendered "remediless" regarding an appeal under Section 107 of the GGST/CGST Acts against an order passed by a State officer under the IGST Act
¶ 703Law Applied
Section 4 of the IGST Act, which provides that officers appointed under State GST Acts are automatically authorized as proper officers for the purposes of the IGST Act
¶ 8.1Section 20 of the IGST Act, which incorporates provisions of the CGST Act regarding search, seizure, and confiscation
¶ 9Bright Road Logistics v. State of Haryana, which held that State officers are competent to exercise powers under Sections 129 and 130 of the IGST Act
¶ 9.1Jageswar Saw v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue
¶ 10Section 107 of the GGST Act and Section 6(1) of the CGST Act regarding the administrative hierarchy and appellate remedies
¶ 8.1, 13Provisions in the judgment · 16 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 129Section 130Section 6Section 107
Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 20Section 4Section 129Section 130
Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 107Section 6Section 10Section 163Section 54Section 55
Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 54Section 55
04Reasoning
The court rejected the petitioner's argument that a specific notification is required to trigger the powers of State officers under the IGST Act. It reasoned that Section 4 of the IGST Act contains an inherent authorization; notifications are only required if the Government intends to specify exceptions or conditions to this power
¶ 8.1Since no such restrictive notification was issued for interception and confiscation, the general authorization stood
¶ 10.1The court observed that the Commissioner of State Tax had already issued an internal order (dated 23.06.2017) assigning specific functions to proper officers, satisfying administrative requirements
¶ 8.2The court found that the petitioner’s reliance on Section 6(3) of the GGST Act—which prevents State orders from being appealed to Central officers—was misplaced. The court clarified that because of the deeming fiction in Section 4 of the IGST Act, an order passed by a State officer remains a State action, and thus a valid appeal lies before the State Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the GGST Act
¶ 1305Holding
The court held that State Tax officers are fully empowered to act as proper officers under the IGST Act by virtue of Section 4, and no further central notification is necessary to validate their jurisdiction
¶ 12The court further held that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GGST Act. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable
¶ 13Original Court PDF
M/s JAI GANESH ENTERPRISEvsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
