Jurisdiction under GST — In the instant case, petitioner has advanced solitary contention emphasizing the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent, who passed the order of Prohibition as contemplated under Section 67(2) of CGST Act. It is urged that the authority competent to pass the order should not be below the rank of Joint Commissioner while the order impugned has been passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, who is not competent to pass the order of Prohibition, therefore, the order of prohibition so passed confiscating the goods is unsustainable in law. Held that— For the purpose of seizure where the authority is having a reason to believe that proceedings of the confiscation are required in the matter, to which inspection has been carried out, after recording the said reason, he may exercise such power for seizure by authorising in writing any of the officers of the Central Tax Department. In this view of the matter and looking to the order of prohibition so passed in GST INS 03, the said order passed by respondent No. 1, without reference to the order of authorisation in writing, is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is hereby set aside. It is made clear that this Court has passed this order looking to the competency of the authority and having found that the power so exercised by respondent No. 1 is not in conformity with the provisions of the Act, but not on the merits of the case. — Mahendra Kumar Indermal Vs. Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) Nandigama Circle [2020] 22 TAXLOK.COM 093 (Telangana & A.P.)