In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that officers appointed under the State Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act are authorised to discharge duties as proper officers for the purposes of Integrated GST and Central GST.

Shree Maa Trading Company, the petitioner, filed writ petitions challenging the seizure and penalty orders passed under Section 129 of the GST Act. The goods were being transported from Delhi to Raipur and were intercepted at Jhansi on 26 May 2025.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the goods were accompanied by proper documents but due to the truck driver’s mistake, they were not produced at the time of interception. They further argued that the penalty should have been imposed under Section 129(1)(a) instead of Section 129(1)(b) as the petitioner was the owner of the goods.

The petitioner’s counsel also argued that the State GST authorities had no jurisdiction to act against goods moving in interstate transit because no notification had been issued under Section 4 of the IGST Act authorising them to do so.

The State’s counsel argued that Section 6 of the CGST Act, Rule 20 of the CGST Rules, and Section 4 of the IGST Act make it clear that State GST officers are automatically empowered to act as proper officers for IGST and CGST, and no separate notification is required.

The counsel further argued that the show cause notice was issued within the prescribed time and that the petitioner had failed to produce the required documents at the time of detention or seizure. The state’s counsel also argued that upon verification, the transactions were found to be bogus, as neither the seller nor the purchaser had recorded them in their GST returns.

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that no documents were produced at the time of detention, and the petitioner’s explanation that they were available but not produced due to the driver’s fault was unsupported by evidence.

The court explained that under Section 4 of the IGST Act, State GST officers are deemed to be proper officers for IGST and CGST unless exceptions are specifically made by notification. The court also pointed out that the findings of fact recorded by the authorities, which showed the transactions to be fictitious, had not been challenged by the petitioner in the writ petitions.

The court held that the proceedings under Section 129 were validly initiated, that State GST officers had the authority to act, and that the petitioner failed to prove ownership of genuine goods. The writ petitions were dismissed.