Officers' Power Under Section 130 Validated: Penalties Upheld, Appellate Remedies Recommended for Challenging Tax Assessment

HC upheld the search and seizure officer's authority to pass an order under Section 130 of OGST/CGST Act. The court rejected the petitioner's challenge, finding the officer competent to impose penalties. The writ petition was disposed of, with the petitioner directed to pursue available appellate remedies against the order.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the quashing of an order of confiscation/adjudication dated 15.04.2023 under Annexure-10, levying fine and penalty by the opposite party no.1. The main issue raised was whether the search and seizure officer had the authority to pass the final order under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act.

Details of the Judgment:
The petitioner contended that the search and seizure officer, Mr. M.K. Pradhan, exceeded his authority by passing the demand order under Annexure-10, imposing penalty and fine on the petitioner. The petitioner argued that Mr. Pradhan acted as the judge of his own cause, which was against the law. On the other hand, the Revenue Standing Counsel argued that Mr. Pradhan had the power to pass the order under Section 130 of the Act, and the order was appealable. The Court noted that the authorization for search and seizure was granted to Mr. Pradhan by the Joint Commissioner, and he had the competency to pass the order under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act. The Court rejected the contention that Mr. Pradhan could not be a judge of his own cause, as the order was passed under the relevant section. The Court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the appropriate authority.

This judgment clarifies the authority of a search and seizure officer to pass orders under Section 130 of the OGST/CGST Act and emphasizes the importance of availing the appeal process for such orders.

---