Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged the confiscation proceedings initiated by the Gujarat State Tax authorities under Section 130 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. The consignment, accompanied by valid e-invoices and e-way bills, was intercepted during inter-State transit. Although the physical verification confirmed that there was no discrepancy between the goods transported and the accompanying documents, the authorities detained the goods alleging that the e-way bill and invoices had been previously used for an earlier consignment.

Thereafter, a show cause notice in Form GST MOV-10 was issued, culminating in a confiscation order in Form GST MOV-11 and a consequential demand of ₹88.68 lakh towards tax, penalty and redemption fine, followed by a summary order in Form GST DRC-07. Instead of filing a statutory appeal, the petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court contending that the State GST officers lacked jurisdiction to invoke powers under the IGST Act in the absence of a specific Central Government notification under Section 4 of the IGST Act. The petitioner further argued that the statutory framework did not provide an effective appellate remedy against such an order passed under the IGST Act.

Issue:

Whether officers appointed under the State GST Act are competent to exercise powers under the IGST Act without a separate notification issued under Section 4 of the IGST Act, and whether an order passed by such officers is appealable under Section 107 of the GGST Act, thereby requiring the taxpayer to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction.

Held That:

The Court held that Section 4 of the IGST Act itself authorises officers appointed under the State GST Act to act as proper officers for the purposes of the IGST Act, and the requirement of a notification arises only where the Central Government intends to prescribe exceptions or conditions to such authorisation. In the absence of any notification curtailing this statutory authorisation, State GST officers are fully empowered to exercise powers under Sections 129 and 130 of the IGST Act. The Court observed that the Commissioner of State Tax had already assigned functions to designated officers through the order dated 23.06.2017, making any further notification unnecessary.

Rejecting the contention regarding the absence of an appellate remedy, the Court held that the legal fiction created by Sections 4 and 20 of the IGST Act enables orders passed by State GST officers under the IGST Act to be challenged before the appellate authority constituted under Section 107 of the GGST Act. Consequently, the petitioner possessed an effective statutory remedy and could not bypass the appellate mechanism by directly invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying upon the decisions of the Punjab & Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts, the Court reaffirmed that the GST framework envisages cross-empowerment to ensure seamless tax administration and avoid jurisdictional conflicts. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal.

Case Name: M/s JAI GANESH ENTERPRISE Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. dated 13.07.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1985