TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Mathai M.V. Versus The Senior Enforcement Officer, Ernakulam, The Principal Secretary, The Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Delhi. - 2025 (6) TMI 1844 - KERALA HIGH COURT held that a confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act without valid service of notice on the vehicle owner in the prescribed statutory modes is void and non-est in law.
Facts:
Mathai M.V. (“the Petitioner”), owner of a truck (bearing registration number KL-31 J-5759), filed a writ petition assailing the confiscation of his vehicle under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The vehicle had transported bilge water from INS Vikramaditya on November 23, 2024, and was later seized by the Respondent authorities. A confiscation order dated December 21, 2024, was purportedly passed against the consignor (Petro Chemicals), but the Petitioner alleged that no notice under Section 130 was ever served upon him as required under the Act.
The Respondents contended that communication with the Petitioner had taken place via WhatsApp, and that the confiscation was lawful. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated April 11, 2025, holding that the Petitioner had endorsed receipt of the confiscation order on January 10, 2025, and hence could not later plead non-service.
The present writ appeal was filed against the said dismissal, contending that service via WhatsApp is not a statutorily recognized mode under Section 169 and that the confiscation proceedings violated the mandate by the statutory provision in the CGST Act, 2017.
Issue:
Whether confiscation of the Petitioner’s vehicle under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, is valid in the light of the notice served through WhatsApp?
Held:
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Mathai M.V. Versus The Senior Enforcement Officer, Ernakulam, The Principal Secretary, The Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Delhi. - 2025 (6) TMI 1844 - KERALA HIGH COURT held as under:
- Observed that, under Section 130(4), no confiscation order can be passed without giving the owner of the conveyance an opportunity of being heard.
- Noted that, the Petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle and had consistently contended that no valid notice under Section 130 was served upon him.
- Held that, service of notice via WhatsApp is not a permissible mode under Section 169 of the CGST Act. Although services through WhatsApp were used during the COVID-19 pandemic, such informal methods no longer can be held as substitute to satisfy the mandatory service requirements.
- Observed that, the record does not establish that any notice under Section 130 was served on the Petitioner. The confiscation proceedings thus suffered from procedural illegality.
- Held that, relied upon, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Lakshay Logistics Versus State of Gujarat - 2021 (1) TMI 99 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and the ruling of the Madras High Court in M/s. Poomika Infra Developers, Represented by its Proprietor K.S. Udhayashankar Versus State Tax Officer And M/s. MV Creations Rep by its Proprietor Madappan Venkateswaran Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), The Assistant Commissioner (ST), The State Tax Officer, (Audit), Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax, The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax, (Appeal), Salem - 2025 (4) TMI 1308 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, wherein confiscation under Section 130 was quashed solely for lack of proper service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
- Further held that, the confiscation of the Petitioner’s vehicle is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained and accordingly, the confiscation order dated December 21, 2024, was quashed and the Respondents were directed to issue a fresh notice under Section 130, giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
(Author can be reached at [email protected])