Point of Law: As per the provisions of Section 67(1) of the Act, power of inspection is specified to an officer not below the rank of joint commissioner. The said officer for the 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 the taxable person or the persons engaged in the business of transporting goods or the owner or the operator of warehouse or godown, as the case may be.

ORDER :

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order of Prohibition issued in Form GST INS 03, dated 21.12.2019 by the 1st respondent-Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST), Jaggaiahpet unit, Nandigama Circle, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada, this writ petition has been preferred.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has advanced solitary contention emphasizing the jurisdiction of the It respondent, who passed the order of Prohibition as contemplated under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter be called as "CGST"). It is urged that the authority competent to pass the order should not be below the rank of Joint Commissioner while the order impugned has been passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, who is not competent to pass the order of Prohibition, therefore, the order of prohibition so passed confiscating the goods is unsustainable in law.

3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax appearing on behalf of the respondents though opposed the prayer, but on reference to the provision so contemplated under Section 67(2) of the Act, he consented to adjudication of the case on merits.

4. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, and looking to the fact that the issue involved regarding jurisdiction of the authority in the matter of search, seizure and confiscation, in the matter, has not been found from the order impugned, however, being a legal issue, it can be heard and decided on merits as rightly conceded by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. In the present case, the order of Prohibition issued in Form GST INS 03 is under challenge. The said Form was issued in terms of Rule 139(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, which prescribes that, to carry out the purpose of the Act specified under Section 67(2) of the Act, how it can be proceeded with. At present, the provisions of the Act i.e., 67(1) and (2) of the Act are relevant. However, it is reproduced as under:

Section 67: Power of Inspection, search and seizure,

(1) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, has reasons to believe that--

(a) a taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or the 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 the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under to evade tax under this Act; or

(b) any person engaged in the business of transporting goods or an owner or operator of a warehouse or a godown or any other place is keeping goods which have escaped payment of tax or has kept his accounts or goods in such a manner as is likely 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 the taxable person or the persons engaged in the business of transporting goods or the owner or the operator of warehouse or godown or any other place.

(2) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to an 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 his 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 things:

Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods. the proper officer, or any officer authorised by him, may serve on the owner or the custodian of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer:

Provided further that the documents or books or things so seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for the