As per case facts, petitioners' goods moving in inter-state trade were intercepted and detained/seized/confiscated by State tax officers in Andhra Pradesh. These actions were taken on grounds of undervaluation, mismatch ... in goods description, or quantity discrepancies, under Sections 129 or 130 of the GST Act, even when necessary documents were present. The core issue raised by the petitioners was the State authorities' jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings for inter-state movement under the IGST Act, and to question valuation. The question arose whether officers appointed under the APGST Act could function as 'proper officers' under the CGST Act or IGST Act for inter-state transactions, especially when the originating and culminating states were outside Andhra Pradesh, and whether they had the power to assess valuation discrepancies during transit. Finally, the Court held that a State officer's cross-empowerment under the IGST Act for inter-state sales only applies if the State of Andhra Pradesh is entitled to a share of the tax under Section 17 of the IGST Act. Without this, or when goods originate and culminate outside the State, State officers cannot discharge detention or confiscation functions under the IGST Act. The Court also reiterated that undervaluation or minor discrepancies are not grounds for seizure or confiscation under Sections 129 or 130, unless there's a clear intent to evade tax, or documents are fake/missing. In case of discrepancies, the State officer should forward details to the proper officers of the consignor and consignee for further action. The impugned proceedings were set aside, with records to be forwarded to respective proper officers.