2026 (6) TMI 993

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....laborate submissions. We also have the consent of both sides that we can dispose of this Appeal at this stage itself. 2. The Enforcement Officer, along with the Assistant Tax Officer of the 3rd appellant - State Goods and Service Tax Department, are in Appeal; and they assail the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 881/2026. 3. The presented facts, compendiously, are to the effect that the consignment of the respondent was intercepted by the 2nd appellant on 25.11.2025 and a suspicion was entered that the goods covered by the documents were not properly accounted for, thus leading to an assumption of evasion of tax. It is admitted that, thereafter, a notice under Form MOV-10, as per the Central Goods and Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is the provision invoked, going by the factum of issuance of MOV-10 Notice to his client - no detention is possible in the manner as has been done. His specific contention was that, before further action under Section 130 of the 'Act' can be taken forward, the goods will have to be released, unless its detention is authorised by a competent order. He predicated that, without such an order, his client has been left without any remedy to challenge the detention. 6. We see from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has held that the detention of the goods without proper order of detention, is illegal and has consequently permitted its release in favour of the respondent on furnishing a simple bond. It is pertinent that the lea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rred to the Statutory Adjudicating Authority, through a notice under Form MOV-4 on 27.11.2025, and that the said Authority then issued the proposal for confiscation covered by Form MOV-10, on 03.12.2025. 10. Of course, the learned counsel for the respondent contested the above, saying that no Form MOV-1 or MOV-4 notices, or under MOV-2 had ever been issued to his client; but, this is a matter in the realm of facts, into which we cannot enter, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Suffice to say, as matters now stand, the proceedings pursuant to Form MOV-10 proposal has not been completed, though the respondent appears to have been agreed to remit the determined penalty and tax thereunder - albeit, solely to ....