2018 (9) TMI 1417 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 46 (M. P.) – Jurisdiction – Competency to issue SCN – sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of any notification under Section 4 of IGST Act, 2017, the respondent No.4 is not competent to issue show cause notice and the impugned seizure memo dated 15.07.2018 is wholly without jurisdiction – Held that:- The officers appointed under the MPGST Act, 2017 was authorized to be proper officers for the purposes of the IGST Act.
–
The officers appointed under the MPGST Act are authorized to be proper officers for the purpose of IGST and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no notification was issued and in absence of any notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act has no force, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted that the action of the respondent No.4 is wholly without jurisdiction.
–
Petition dismissed with liberty to avail the remedy of appeal prov
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
se powers under the IGST Act, 2017, therefore, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have no power to inspect, search and seize goods under the IGST Act, 2017 and prayed for its quashment. 4. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in absence of any notification under Section 4 of IGST Act, 2017, the respondent No.4 is not competent to issue show cause notice and the impugned seizure memo dated 15.07.2018 is wholly without jurisdiction. 5. The IGST Act, 2017 deals with taxability of inter-state supply of goods and services. Section 4 of the IGST Act reads as under :- 4. Without prejudice to the provisions of this Act, the officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act are authorised to be the proper officers for the purposes of this Act, subject to such exceptions and conditions as the Government shall, on the recommendations of the Council, by notification, specify. 6. From perusal of the aforesaid, it
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ovisions of Central Goods & Services Tax Act (in short the CGST ) relating to inspection, search, seizure etc. Section 68 of the MPGST Act provides the powers of inspection, search and seizure of goods in movement. Section 129 of the MPGST Act provides the power in respect of detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyance in transaction. 9. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the subject vehicle was transporting goods for inter-state supply of goods from Gurgaon, Haryana to Pune, Maharashtra. As per E-Way Bill System (Annexure- P/4), the number of vehicle was mentioned as HR-38-0823 whereas, the correct vehicle number is HR-38-X-0823. It was found by the respondent No.4 that the E-Way Bill was defective and not updated, therefore, show cause notice was issued on 13.07.2018 to inspect the subject vehicle on 15.07.2018. On inspection, the respondent No.4 in exercise of powers under Section 129(1) of the MPGST Act passed the seizure order (Annexure-P/1) on 15.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
filed this writ petition. He has also drawn our attention to the notification dated 13.10.2017 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance in respect of refund under Section 20 of the IGST Act and submitted that similar type of notification is required and prayed for its quashment. 13. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties so also the provisions of Section 4 of the IGST Act, we are of the view that officers appointed under the MPGST Act are authorized to be proper officers for the purpose of IGST and, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no notification was issued and in absence of any notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act has no force, we cannot accept the contention of the petitioner that the action of the respondent No.4 is wholly without jurisdiction. 14. In view of the statutory appeal provided under the statute, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and dismiss the writ petition with liberty to av
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =