TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1133
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Pooja Ashar waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 4. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner proposes to challenge the show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-10 dated 29.01.2026, issued by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent' for short), proposing confiscation of the goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) 5. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies went ahead and issued show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-10 on 29.01.2026 proposing confiscation under Section 130 of the Act, which is now impugned in the present writ petition. The petitioner has filed a detailed reply dated 12.02.2026 to the show-cause notice. However, the show-cause notice is challenged in the present writ-petition alleging that it is unsustainable and there is no discrepancy in the documentation of the goods. 6. Mr. Ravish Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that FORM GST MOV-06 dated 21.01.2026 and the consequential FORM GST MOV-10 dated 29.01.2026 are without jurisdiction, for they proceed on allegations and assertions extraneous to the intercepted movement and assume confiscation power under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jarat. The dealers are not registered dealers. It was further pointed out on the basis of the affidavit-in-reply that there are other E-way Bills for other goods for the conveyance in question which were intercepted. It was further submitted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Ashar that the activity looked as activity of evasion of tax. It was further pointed out that the petitioner has no locus standi because they are not directly related to the goods in question. Instead, the right of remedy may be available to the Supplier or the Recipient or the Transporter. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Ashar has challenged the locus of the present petitioner by preferring the present writ petition. In wake of such submis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assistant Government Pleader has placed strong reliance on the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Punjab v. Shiv Enterprises & Ors, reported in [2023] 56 TAXLOK.COM 035 (SC), which categorically observed as under: "5. .... Apart from the fact that the aforesaid is factually incorrect, even otherwise, it was premature for the High Court to opine anything on whether there was any evasion of the tax or not. The same was to be considered in an appropriate proceeding for which the notice under Section 130 of the Act was issued. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice and quashing and setting aside the same. Howev....