Tax Inspector in the course of the audit

The inspector of the tax service in the course of the control inspection of compliance with the rules of turnover of alcoholic beverages in the LLC “Shop Stolnik” on March 20 revealed the fact that they were on the counter of alcoholic products without price tags, without indicating the manufacturer of the goods, and therefore, on March 30, he drafted an administrative report the offense under Part 3 of Article 14.16 of the Administrative Code in relation to the store manager Zalivkin. On May 10, the head of the interdistrict tax inspectorate, having examined the materials of the case, issued a decree on the appointment of an administrative penalty to Zalivkin in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 3,000 rubles.
On May 25, Zalivkin filed a complaint against the ruling with the district court, filed a motion to restore the time limit for appeal against the ruling in the case of an administrative offense, which he received by mail on May 22. In support of his complaint, he indicated the following:
the protocol was compiled by an unauthorized official (Article 28.3. of the Administrative Code);
the case was considered by an unauthorized official, since Article 23.5 of the Administrative Code does not give the tax authorities the right to consider cases of administrative offenses provided for by Part 3 of Article 14.16 of the Administrative Code;
violated the deadline for the preparation of the protocol and the term for consideration of the case
the case was considered in his absence, and he was not duly notified of the place and time of the consideration of the case (in the administrative offense record there is a record of the day and time of the consideration of the case, but this, in his opinion, is not a proper notice).
In his complaint, Zalivkin requested that the decision to impose an administrative penalty be canceled and the proceedings terminated, since he did not consider himself guilty of an offense - his deputy for trade is in charge of proper order in the trading hall.
On June 10, the district court ruled on the complaint, which canceled the decision on the case of an administrative offense and sent the case for a new consideration to the tax authority, due to the fact that the case was considered in the absence of the person brought to administrative responsibility.
Zalivkin complained about this decision, stating that the district judge had wrongfully sent the case for a new review, since by the time the decision was made, the statute of limitations for administrative responsibility had expired. However, the judge of the district court refused to accept the complaint, stating that the Administrative Code does not provide for the possibility of appealing against the decision of the district court issued on the basis of the results of the appeal against the ruling of the magistrate.
Give a legal analysis of the case. Assess the legality of all legal proceedings and decisions that are named in the task.