Locus standi and writ restraint: challenge to GST confiscation notice refused where no bill-to-ship linkage and documentary discrepancies.

The HC rejected the petitioner's challenge to a GST confiscation show-cause notice on two principal grounds. First, the petitioner lacked locus standi because the record did not establish a bill-to-ship or other statutory connection between the petitioner and the intercepted consignment, undermining standing to seek release. Second, writ intervention was inappropriate where documentary discrepancies, mismatched e-way bill particulars and other indicia of evasion justified adjudicatory inquiry under the statutory confiscation scheme; therefore the court refused to quash the notice and left confiscation proceedings to the prescribed authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the show-cause notice proposing confiscation in Form GST MOV-10 relating to the intercepted consignment; (ii) Whether the writ court should interfere with the show-cause notice under Section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 proposing confiscation, on the factual matrix presented.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the show-cause notice proposing confiscation in Form GST MOV-10 relating to the intercepted consignment.

Analysis: The impugned documents show dispatch from Maharashtra and delivery in Gujarat and are not bill-to-ship transactions linking the petitioner, who is registered in a different jurisdiction, to the consignment as supplier, recipient, or transporter. The material on record raises doubt as to whether the petitioner is directly connected to the goods or the conveyance, and no attempt by the supplier, recipient, or transporter to seek release is recorded. Where the connection between the petitioner and the intercepted movement is not established by supporting statutory documents or by the E-way bill showing bill-to-ship linkage, the petitioner's standing to challenge confiscation proceedings is weak.

Conclusion: The petitioner does not have locus standi to sustain the challenge to the show-cause notice; this conclusion is adverse to the petitioner and in favour of the revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ court should interfere with the show-cause notice under Section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 proposing confiscation, on the factual matrix presented.

Analysis: The impugned notice invokes confiscation grounds under Section 130(1) where document irregularities, mismatch in transaction particulars, and indicia of evasion are alleged. Precedent establishes that writ interference with a show-cause notice under Section 130 is inappropriate where the notice is issued to investigate evasion and where factual materials disclose possible forged or deceptive documentation, absence of proper dealer particulars, or similar indicia of intent to evade tax. The record contains discrepancies in e-way bill particulars and other documentary materials that raise serious doubts about the movement and the transaction, justifying adjudicatory proceedings under the statute rather than preemptive writ relief.

Conclusion: Interference with the show-cause notice is not warranted on the record; this conclusion is adverse to the petitioner and in favour of the revenue.

Final Conclusion: The petition challenging the show-cause notice is without merit on both standing and substance and is dismissed, leaving the statutory confiscation proceedings to be adjudicated by the prescribed authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the petitioner lacks a direct statutory connection to an intercepted consignment and the material discloses documentary discrepancies or indicia of evasion, writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to quash a show-cause notice under Section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; such matters are to be decided in the statutory adjudication process.

---