The jurisdiction of tax authorities cannot be challenged until the affected party responds to a show cause notice.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The appellant calls into question the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 685 of

2026, dated 15.01.2026.

2. The grievance projected by the appellant is that, the learned Single Judge has found the writ petition to be not maintainable, holding that Ext.P4 is only a show cause notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act , CGST Act, 2017 (‘Act’ for short); and thus, refused interim relief of release of articles, upon furnishing security.

3. Sri. Anil D. Nair, learned Senior counsel, instructed by P. K. Biju – appearing for the appellant, argued that the very assumption of jurisdiction by the 1st respondent – Tax Officer, is illegal because, the article in question was admittedly intercepted by the Officers of the State Excise Department, with a seizure mahazar – dated 18.12.2025, being drawn up; and Ext.P14 then says that “the case” was handed over to the GST Department. He argued that this itself is wrong because, the Excise Department had no power to hand over “the case” to the GST Department, but ought to have entrusted the goods, along with the mahazar, to a superior officer or to a court.

4. The learned Senior Counsel then argued that, even assuming that the afore preliminary objection is found not tenable – but without admitting in any manner — the procedure adopted by the Tax Officer in Ext.P14 is also illegal. He argued that, for all these reasons, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the Original Petition, rather than have dismissed it as being not maintainable.

5. Smt. Thushara James – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, refuted the afore contentions, asserting that the learned Single Judge has correctly concluded that the Original Petition is not maintainable because, Ext.P14 is only a notice, against which the petitioner can show cause. She pointed out that the learned Single Judge has not found the Original Petition to be not maintainable, but only to be premature; and has, therefore, left everything open to be considered in future, after cause is shown by the appellant to Ext.P14 notice. She concluded arguing that this is a case where the jurisdiction of the Tax Officer cannot be challenged at all for the singular reason that it has been admitted that the articles in question were not accompanied by any of the mandatorily necessary documents.

6. When we consider the afore submissions, adverting to the findings of the learned Single Judge, we must say that we find in favor of the judgment, inter alia, because Ext.P14 is only a notice, against which all contentions – including qua the actions and competence of the Tax Officer, can be raised. It is only after this, can the jurisdiction of this Court, or that of other alternative forum, can be invoked.

7. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, Ext.P14 reserves full liberty to the appellant to show cause against the seizure; and it is conceded that it has not yet been done by them.

In such circumstances, we refuse to intervene at this stage; however, clarify that the appellant will have the liberty to raise every issue, including qua the competence of the Tax Officer, as per the statutory scheme, when actions in terms of the judgment is taken forward.

Sd/-