https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763290 The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax's jurisdiction under the IGST Act. The petitioner argued the officer lacked authority to issue tax and penalty notices, citing absence of specific government notifications delineating jurisdictions. The petitioner also claimed status as deemed owner of detained goods under CGST Act as consignee. The Court upheld cross-authorization provisions under Section 4 of IGST Act, finding that notifications appointing proper officers under State Tax Act provided sufficient authorization. The Court ruled that absence of limiting notifications meant State Tax officers were empowered to act under IGST Act, and revenue authority retained prerogative to determine deemed ownership of goods. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2025 13:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763290 The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging an Assistant Commissioner of State Tax's jurisdiction under the IGST Act. The petitioner argued the officer lacked authority to issue tax and penalty notices, citing absence of specific government notifications delineating jurisdictions. The petitioner also claimed status as deemed owner of detained goods under CGST Act as consignee. The Court upheld cross-authorization provisions under Section 4 of IGST Act, finding that notifications appointing proper officers under State Tax Act provided sufficient authorization. The Court ruled that absence of limiting notifications meant State Tax officers were empowered to act under IGST Act, and revenue authority retained prerogative to determine deemed ownership of goods. Case-Laws GST Tue, 26 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763290