https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367681 State GST officers appointed and authorised under the State enactment for interception, inspection, seizure and notice issuance may act as proper officers for IGST purposes under Section 4 of the IGST Act; the absence of a separate notification does not by itself negate their competence. Consequently, the seizure and related proceedings remained valid. Where a final tax and penalty order carries an express statutory appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction need not be exercised to challenge the demand and seizure proceedings. The affected party must pursue the available statutory appeal. en-us Thu, 23 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367681 State GST officers appointed and authorised under the State enactment for interception, inspection, seizure and notice issuance may act as proper officers for IGST purposes under Section 4 of the IGST Act; the absence of a separate notification does not by itself negate their competence. Consequently, the seizure and related proceedings remained valid. Where a final tax and penalty order carries an express statutory appellate remedy, writ jurisdiction need not be exercised to challenge the demand and seizure proceedings. The affected party must pursue the available statutory appeal. Case-Laws GST Thu, 23 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367681