AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 851
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents. 2. While being in transit, on 28.12.2025, the 3rd respondent intercepted the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN40R9159 near Kanhangad. Since then, the vehicle has been in the custody of the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, on 29.12.2025 at 2.30 pm, the petitioner came to the GST office in compliance with the summons and thereafter, his mobile phone was seized unlawfully and he was coerced to make certain statements, which have been recorded by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, video graphed recording was also made of the interrogation of the petitioner and thereby extracted false statements from him. In the meantime, the petitioner also received GST MOV-3 dated 30.12.2025, proposing to extend the time for conducting inspection. 3. Since the goods and the vehicle were not released, despite the expiry of more than two weeks, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- i. issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction, or order commanding the Respondents to forthwith release and restore full custody and possession of the consignment of areca nut and the commercial conveyance (Regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3rd and 4th respondents, wherein, the averments contained in the writ petition are denied. It is averred therein that, as far as registration of M/s. Bandadka Traders is concerned, it is obtained very recently on 11.12.2025 and had generated 15 E-way bills amounting to Rs. 5,11,57,250/- with a tax liability of Rs. 25,57,862/-. All these supplies were to a single taxpayer, M/s. Sobhar Enterprises, New Delhi, whose registration was cancelled for non-filing of return. According to the respondents, the petitioner had appeared at the GST Office, Kasargod on 08.01.2026 pursuant to a telephonic conversation and thereupon, a detailed statement was recorded under Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017, which was video-graphed in its entirety from 3.45 PM to 5.55PM. As per the statement given by the petitioner, he has no knowledge of the functioning of M/s. Bandadka Traders and he stated that his ignorance and financial hardship were exploited by certain individuals to obtain a GST registration in his name, for their own benefit, offering Rs. 50,000/-. He also mentioned about a person, named Hameed from Karnataka, as the individual who brought him to the GST office under the false pretext of recei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O toll plaza record anywhere on the 2,500 km route to Delhi-no crossings in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, or Uttar Pradesh. On 05.01.2026, the E-way Bill was updated to change the vehicle to KA01AN0266 at Pollachi, Tamil Nadu-a location not on the Delhi route. And this new updated Vehicle KA01AN0266 is also not seen crossed any Toll plazas enroute to Delhi till date. This vehicle change at an unrelated location confirms that the original vehicle never reached Delhi and the E-way Bill was manipulated to create a false paper trail. 7. It is also averred that, the petitioner has dispatched 15 consignments worth Rs.5,11,57,250/- to M/s. Sobhar Enterprises, New Delhi. For the detained consignment alone, the Petitioner produced 63 purchase invoices totaling Rs.30,28,562/- purportedly paid to farmers. For all 15 consignments, purchases from farmers would necessarily exceed Rs.4 to 4.5 Crores. However, the analysis of the bank statement attached with the registration of the petitioner, for the period from 23.12.2025 to 23.01.2026 reveals the following aspects:- Parameter Actual in Bank Statement Expected from claimed business Total Debits Approximately Rs. 28,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tter is under investigation. Thus, they contended that, all the procedure adopted by them were in tune with the statutory provisions. 11. A detailed reply affidavit has filed by the petitioner, disputing the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. 12. I have heard Sri. Aswin Gopakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mohammed Rafeeq, the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents. 13.. Today when the matter came up for consideration, apart from the documents produced along with the counter-affidavit, the learned Spl. Government Pleader made available original file relating to the proceedings that are in progress against the petitioner and thus, this Court got the advantage to peruse the same as well. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that, proceedings under Sec. 129 are not at all legally sustainable and the continuation of detention of the vehicle after it seizure on 28.01.2026 is illegal. As regards the issuance of the detention order as claimed by the respondents, it is submitted by the petitioner that, as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5, whereas, the actual date of the statement was on 08.01.2026. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to explain the same by pointing out that, it was only a mistake due to a communication gap between the petitioner and the learned counsel while preparing the statement. However, the fact remains that, no amendment of the same has been sought as of now. Besides, from the perusal of the relevant files made available learned Special Government Pleader, it is discernible that, on 30.12.2025 itself, summons under Sec.70 was issued to the pertinent herein in two known addresses including the declared business place, but both the said summons were returned with the postal endorsement that "addressee left" and "no such addressee" on 06.01.2026. In the meantime, extension of time for completing the inspection was also granted by the competent authority acting upon Form MOV-3 issued to the petitioner. Later, only on 08.01.2026, the petitioner was personally served the summons and thereafter, statement of the petitioner was recorded. As mentioned above, even though the petitioner alleged coercion in obtaining the said statement, certain factual findings that are disclose....