Section 61 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Notice — Proper Officer -- The petitioner challenged the notices in Form GST ASMT-10 dated 28.02.2023. The Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no provision authorizing the Director of Vigilance & Enforcement in the State to conduct inspection of the business premises. Further, the impugned notices did state anything about the authorization issued to him by the Joint Commissioner, as required under Section 67 of the Act. The court observed that the Vigilance & Enforcement Department was constituted by the Government to conduct enquiries / investigations into specific allegations affecting public interest and to take effective measures through its own machinery and achieve several objectives, one of which is prevention of leakage of revenues due to the Government therefore, if need be, it can make inspection in the premises of taxable traders. The 3rd respondent issued impugned notices in terms of Rule 99(1) r/w Section 61 but not under Section 67 of the Act. At this stage, no action was contemplated to inspect the premises of the petitioner or to search and seize any goods or books of accounts as contemplated under Section 67 of the Act. But the 3rd respondent who issued the impugned notices is the Deputy Commissioner (ST) but not the Chief Commissioner. Therefore, in order to issue the impugned notices, the 3rd respondent requires the authorization of the Chief Commissioner assigning the task of issuing notices under Rule 99 r/w Section 61. The two impugned notices suffer the vice of lack of authorization by the Proper Officer.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned notices dated 28.02.2023 with an observation that the respondent authorities are at liberty to issue fresh notices either through the Chief Commissioner or any other Officer of the State Tax authorized by the Chief Commissioner in that regard.