TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1341
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the following reliefs: "A. Be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other appropriate writ in the nature under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing/set aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 129(1) in GST MOV-06 (Annexure - A); In continuation thereto, be further pleased to pass an appropriate order to directing the Respondents to release the goods and conveyance bearing number RJ14GN6007 and RJ14GN6017 in time bound manner; B. Be pleased to declare that the detention of the vehicle was illegal and without the authority of law, and consequently, quash and set aside any subsequent proceedings or orders passed pursuant to such illegal detention; C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Hon'ble court may please to pass an appropriate interim relief/ad interim relief/stay the effects, implementation, operations and executions of the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 129(1) in GST MOV-06 (Annexure - A) D. Be please to allow any other appropriate relief and compensation to the petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....6. It is also the case of the petitioner that on 7.6.2025, in pursuance to directions issued by the respondent No.2, the authorized representative of the petitioner appeared and availed the opportunity of personal hearing and submitted necessary documents such as tax invoice, E-way bill and other documents. 5.7. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice dated 21.6.2025 directing the petitioner to avail the opportunity of personal hearing and to produce the relevant documents such as bank statement in relation to the detention of goods in question. 5.8. The petitioner filed detailed reply dated 30.6.2025 against the detention order dated 6.5.2025 contending that the consignment was accompanied by all requisite documents as per Rule 138A of the Central/ State GST Rules, 2017 (for short 'the GST Rules') and that the detention under Section 129 or 130 of the GST Act was without authority of law. 5.9. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made request for release of the detained goods and vehicle on 14.7.2025, however, the same was not released and, therefore, the petitioner requested the Special Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax, Gujarat to intervene in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST, reported in (2025) 108 GST 371 (Orissa) and the decision of the Madras High Court in case of Madhesh @Madesan V. State Tax Officer (FAC), Commercial Tax Department, reported in (2025) 96 GSTL 363 (Mad). 7.3 The learned advocate for the petitioner, referred to the provisions of Section 129(3) of the GST Act, and submitted that the period of limitation prescribed must receive strict construction, as the law of limitation is intended to give certainty and finality to legal proceedings and to avoid exposure to risk of litigation to litigant for indefinite period on future unforeseen events. 7.4 It was, therefore, submitted that as per the provisions of Section 129(3) of the GST, Act, the respondent has missed the time line for issuance of the notice and passing of the detention order and as such, the impugned detention order in Form GST MOV-06 dated 6.5.2025 is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 7.5 In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of Apex Court in case of K.M. Sharma v. Income Tax Officer, reported in (2002) 254 ITR 772. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in case of Tvl. V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing respondent. It was only on 11.06.2025 that the regular officer took charge. 11. It is submitted that further due to the heavy work load and health issues, the answering respondent was unable to initiate further action in the case of the Petitioners. 12. It is submitted that inadvertently such delay has taken place and no action was taken pursuant to issuance of the detention order in form GST MOV 06. It is further submitted that on 06.08.2025 the answering respondent has issued form GST MOV 10 under Section 130 of the Act. 13. It is submitted that as per provision of Section 130 there is no stipulated time line within which a show cause notice in Form MOV 10 is to be issued. However, admittedly there is delay in the present matter for which we apologize. 14. It is further submitted that after issuance of Form GST MOV 10 dated 06.08.2025, due to transfer a new Officer was appointed on 18.08.2025." 10. Referring to the aforesaid averments, it was submitted that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside in view of the issuance of the show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-10. 11. Having heard learned advocates f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n'ble Orissa High Court in case of S.A. Sugandh (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha (supra) has also after considering the provisions of Section 129(3) of the GST Act ordered to release the goods and vehicle, setting aside the order of detention as no notice was issued for levy of penalty under Section 129 of the GST Act within 7 days. iii) The Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of Madhesh @Madhesan v. State Tax Officer (FAC) Commercial Tax Department, Hosur (Supra), following its earlier decisions, has held as under: "2. In this regard, petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in TVI Udhavan Steels (P) Ltd. v. Deputy State Tax Officer (Ins) [2023] 147 taxmann.com 509/96 GST 615/71 GSTL 133 (Madras) wherein this Court, following the order in W.P. No. 25931 of 2022, dated 10.10.2022/4 Irudayaraju v. State Tax Officer [2023] 147 taxmann.com 269/72 GSTL 245 (Madras) held as under 3. In this regard, it may be relevant to note the following dates. (a) The date of detention is 07.12.2022. (b) The notice was issued on 07.12.2022 (c) The order of detention is passed on 15.12.2022. 4. It is submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the respondents seek to do in the present case. This is made explicitly clear from the Circular and the amendment brought about on 21-6-2018 and the submission of learned Government Pleader runs directly contrary to the amendment under the Circular and the purpose it evidently seeks to advance. These submissions are thus found to be misconceived and hyper-technical, and are rejected. 12. The acts of interception and retention, though an invasion into the rights of citizens, have been accorded satutory sanction in pursuance of the aims and objects of the Goods and Services Act. Thus, it is imperative that such intrusive acts be carried in strict compliance of the statutory provisions in this regard. Thus, and as the detention is a pre-condition/requisite for the issuance of the SCN, the order of detention is necessarily to be issued prior to the 7th day from date of detention/seizure of the conveyance/consignment in question. being, in this case, on or before the 20-8-2022, to validate both the interception and the SCN. 13. Since the order of detention is dated 22-8-2022, it is clearly beyond the date provided and in my view, is a serious flaw, one that vitiates ....