https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409022 HC held that the officer designated by the Board under the CGST Act qualifies as a "proper officer" under s.2(91) and was empowered to issue summons under s.70 in connection with inquiries arising from proceedings under s.67 and related provisions. The Board's assignment of functions obviated the need for a separate delegation under s.167. Interim guidelines from a prior interim order addressing voluntary payments during search/seizure were inapplicable where no s.67 search occurred and the taxpayers had made payments under s.74(5) and notified the proper officer. Petition dismissed. en-us Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2025 13:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409022 HC held that the officer designated by the Board under the CGST Act qualifies as a "proper officer" under s.2(91) and was empowered to issue summons under s.70 in connection with inquiries arising from proceedings under s.67 and related provisions. The Board's assignment of functions obviated the need for a separate delegation under s.167. Interim guidelines from a prior interim order addressing voluntary payments during search/seizure were inapplicable where no s.67 search occurred and the taxpayers had made payments under s.74(5) and notified the proper officer. Petition dismissed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409022