Page 83 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] MAHENDRA KUMAR INDERMAL v. DY. ASSTT. COMMR. (ST), VIJAYAWADA 169
hibition 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 Commis-
sioner, 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 respond-
ents.
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 be-
lieve 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 entitle-
ment under this Act or has indulged in contravention of any
of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder 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 oth-
er 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 busi-
ness 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 other-
wise, 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 oth-
erwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such of-
ficer :

GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  83