Only a Joint Commissioner can authorize inspections under the GST Act, and there is no requirement to disclose the authorization details to the taxable person, though they must be informed of its existence.

ORAL ORDER :

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.)

1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. Sri.M.B.Kanavi, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the entire inspection proceedings initiated under section 67(1) of the GST Act 2017 against the petitioner, including the written statement dated 02.09.2025 marked as Annexure B on the ground that the same are without valid reasons to believe, beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. or, in the alternative.

b. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to confine inspection strictly to the extent of transactions covered by the recorded “Reasons to Believe” supported with tangible evidence.

c. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents that, if a full-fledged audit is considered necessary, the same shall be undertaken only under section 65 or 66 of the GST Act in accordance with due process of law.

d. Declare that the petitioner's statement dated 02.09.2025 does not amount to consent or waiver permitting a full audit under relevant provisions of CGST and KGST Act, 2017.

e. Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice and equality.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that without there being an application of mind by the Joint Commissioner, as required under Section 67 of the CGST and SGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for brevity), the Commercial Tax Officer has inspected the premises of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to submit certain documents, as also called upon the petitioner to submit a statement.

5. Submission of Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner is that

5.1. In terms of Section 67 of the Act, a proper Officer not below the rank of Joint Commissioner ought to have reason to believe that a taxable person has suppressed any transaction or has claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement under the Act and or has indulged in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act and thereafter he may authorise in writing any other Officer of the Central Tax to inspect any place of business of the taxable person.

5.2. In the present matter, his submission is that there is no such reason to believe expressed by the Joint Commissioner and as such the Commercial Tax Officer has inspected the property of the petitioner without authorisation and or jurisdiction. His submission is also that the Joint Commissioner being required to apply his mind and pass a necessary order, the copy of the order of the Joint Commissioner is also required to be furnished to the petitioner, which not having been furnished, the Commercial Tax Officer could not have carried out the inspection and recorded the statement of the petitioner.

6. Shri Sharad Magdum Learned AGA submits that

6.1. There is application of mind by the joint commissioner and there is an authorisation granted to the Commercial Tax Officer. He has made available a copy of GST INS-01 being the authorisation for inspection issued by the Office of the Joint Commissioner, Dharwad and by relying on the same he submits that the Joint Commissioner having received certain information with regard to another assessee, having suppressed the transaction with the petitioner, had exercised powers under Subsection (1) of Section 67 of the Act and authorised the Commercial Tax Officer to carry out necessary inspection, in terms of the applicable law.

6.2. The said document he submits is a confidential document, which discloses the nature of information received and as such, those confidential information having been considered by the Joint Commissioner, the Joint Commissioner has issued an authorisation to the Commercial Tax Officer in terms of Subsection (1) of Section 67 of the Act and as such, no fault could be found in the actions taken by the Commercial Tax Officer.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 an