State Tax Officers are empowered to act as Proper Officers under the IGST Act without separate notification.

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

Despite 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

A 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)

The 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

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

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

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

Section 20 of the IGST Act, which incorporates provisions of the CGST Act regarding search, seizure, and confiscation

Bright 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

Jageswar Saw v. Deputy Commissioner of Revenue

Section 107 of the GGST Act and Section 6(1) of the CGST Act regarding the administrative hierarchy and appellate remedies

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

Since no such restrictive notification was issued for interception and confiscation, the general authorization stood

The 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

The 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

The 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