HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATT CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI & JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.6146 of 2O2O Mahendra Kumar Indermal Rep., by Proprietor Mahendra Kumar Kankariya, R/o 11-40-57, Pulipativari Street, Vijayawada. Petitioner. Versus 1. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) Jaggaiahpet Unit, Nandigama Circle, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada and others. .. Respondents. Counsel for petitioner : Sri Dandu Srinivas Counsel for respondents : Government Pleader for Commercial Tax. ORAL ORDER Dt: O6.03.2O20 per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ 1. Being aggrieved by order of Prohibition issued in Form GST INS 03, dated 21.12.2019 by 1st respondent-Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST), Jaggaiahpet unit, Nandigama Circle, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, this writ petition has been preferred. 2. Learned Counsel for petitioner has advanced solitary contention emphasizing jurisdiction of 1't respondent, who passed order of Prohibition as contemplated under Section 67(2) ot Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter be called as "CGST"). It is urged that authority competent to pass order should not be below rank of Joint Commissioner while order impugned has been passed by Deputy Assistant Commissioner, who is not competent to pass order of Prohibition, therefore, *r. 2 HCJ & NJs,J W.P.No.6146 of 2020 order of prohibition so passed confiscating goods is unsustainable in law. 3, On other hand, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing on behalf of respondents though opposed prayer, but on reference to provision so contemplated under Section 67(2) of Act, he consented to adjudication of case on merits. 4. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties, and looking to fact that issue involved regarding jurisdiction of authority in matter of search, seizure and confiscation, in matter, has not been found from order impugned, however, being legal issue, it can be heard and (ecided on merits as rightly conceded by learned Government Pleader for respondents. 5. In present case, order of Prohibition issued in Form GST INS 03 is under challenge. said Form was issued in terms of Rule 139(4) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which prescribes that, to carry out purpose oF Act specifled under Section 67(2) of Act, how it can be proceeded with. At present, provisions of Act i.e., 67(1) and (2) of Act are relevant. However, it is reproduced as under: Section 67: Power of Inspection, search and seizure, (1) Where proper officer, not below rank of Joint Commissioner, has reasons to believe that-- (a) taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or stock of goods in hand, or has claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement under this Act or has Indulged in contravention of any of provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder to evade tax under this Act; or \. 3 HCJ & NJS,.J W.P.No.6146 of 2020 (b) any person engaged in business of transporting goods or owner or operator of warehouse or godown or any other place is keeping goods which have escaped payment of tax or has kept his accounts or goods in such manner as is llkely to cause evasion of tax payable under this Act, he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to inspect any places of business of taxable person or persons engaged in business of transporting goods or owner or operator of warehouse or godown or any other place. (2) Where proper officer, not below rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to inspection carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in hls opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or thlngs: Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods. proper oFficer, or any officer authorised by him, may serve on owner or custodian of goods order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with goods except with previous permission of such officer: Provided further that documents or books or things so seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under this Act. 6. On perusal thereto, it reveals that under sub-Section (1), where officer not below rank of Joint Commissioner has reasons to believe that person has suppressed transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or stock of goods in hand or claimed input tax credit in excess to his entitlement or indulged in contravention of any of provisions of Act or Rules made thereunder with intent to evade tax under this Act, ( or) any person engaged in business of transporting goods or owner or operator 4+ .v 4 HCJ & NJS,J W.P.No.6146 of 2020 of warehouse or godown or any other place is keeping goods, which have escaped payment of tax or has kept his accounts or goods in such manner as is likely to cause evasion of tax, in that contingency, he may authorise any other officer of Central Tax to inspect any places of business of taxable person or persons engaged in business of transporting goods or owner or operator of warehouse or godown as case may be. Meaning thereby, under sub-Section (1) of Section 67 of Act, competent officer is joint commissioner, but in case, he has reasons to believe of aforesaid facts, he may authorize any person in writing or any other officer of Central Tax to inspect. As per Section 67(2) of Act, it is clear that officer, not below rank of Joint Commissioner, in pursuance to inspection carried out under sub- Section (1), or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable for confiscation or any documents or books or things, which shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise in writing any other ofFicer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, doculnents or books or things. first proviso makes it clear that where seizure of any good is not practicable, then, he may serve on owner or custodian of goods order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with goods except with previous permission of such officer. second proviso deals with documents or books or things so seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under this Act. XL 5 - HCJ & NJS,J W.P.No.6146 of 2020 7. In present case, Form GST INS 03, which deals with order of Prohibition, has been issued to Proprietor of MAT Parcel Service premises. However, this is order issued under Section 67(2) of Act by officer i.e., l't respondent-Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST). In said order of Prohibition, nothing is mentioned, viz., by which written order he has been authorized by officer so specified in Section 67(2) ot Act. It is also contention of petitioner that even for purpose of Section 67(1) of Act, in respect of search including inspection, written authorization is required. It is conspicuously missing in present case. Therefore, order of prohibition passed by 1't respondent is illegal and without any jurisdiction. B. After perusal of provisions of Act, we find much substance in argument of learned Counsel for petitioner. As per provisions of Section 67(1) of Act, power of inspection is specified to officer not below rank of joint commissioner. said officer for purpose of search as specified in Section 67(1) (a) and (b) may authorize in writing any other officer of Central Tax for inspection of any places of business of taxable person or persons engaged in business of transporting goods or owner or operator of warehouse or godown, as case may be. Similar is provision of Section 67(2) of Act. For purpose of seizure where authority is having reason to believe that proceedings of confiscation are required in matter, to which inspection has been carried out, after recording said reason, he may exercise such power for seizure by authorising in writing any of officers of Central Tax Department. In this vjew of matter and looking to AL 6 HCJ & NJS,J I W.P.No.6146 of 2020 03, said order order of prohlbition so passed in GST INS passed by respondent No.1, without reference to order of authorisation in writing, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is hereby set aside. It is made clear that this Court has passed this order looking to competency of authority and having found that power so exercised by respondent No.1 ls not in conformity with provisions of Act, but not on merits of case. 9. With aforesaid, Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As sequel all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. However, authority is at liberty to take recourse as permissible u nder law. J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Nn Mahendra Kumar Indermal v. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) Vijayawada and other