Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Search and Inspection – The petitioner challenged the impugned order in FORM GST INS-I dated 21.12.2022 and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent not to proceed on the basis of the impugned proceeding. According to the petitioner, the proper officer must disclose the exact reasons, which he has not disclosed under the impugned authorisation dated 21.12.2022. The court observed that subsequent to the impugned authorisation dated 21.12.2022, the Inspecting Officer has inspected the premises of the petitioner and has collected records/documents. Thereafter, the second respondent has sent intimation letters dated 07.01.2023 to the petitioner disclosing the defects pursuant to the inspection carried out by him, the penalty proposed under Section 74  has also been disclosed. An opportunity of personal hearing has also been granted to the petitioner on 24.01.2023. The petitioner has not sent any reply to the same. The petitioner contended that the second respondent has got no jurisdiction to issue the impugned intimation letters. The court observed that no final orders have been passed and only an intimation has been given to the petitioner about the proposal to levy taxes, interest and penalty and the petitioner has also been given an opportunity to submit a reply and has also been afforded with personal hearing, the question of entertaining this writ petition at this stage will not arise, as it is premature.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the impugned SCN and the intimation letters all dated 07.01.2023 to the third respondent within a period of two weeks. On receipt of the said reply within the stipulated time, the third respondent shall pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving due consideration to the contentions raised by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter.