TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....47. On 13.02.2025, the said conveyance was inspected by the State Tax Officer (1), Kachchh Mobile Squad, at Radhanpar Highway near Samakhiyali. After verification of the vehicle, a verification report in Form GST MOV-4 and a detention order in Form GST MOV-6 came to be issued on 13.02.2025. Thereafter, on 21.02.2025, the respondent issued a show-cause notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the CGST Act') in Form GST MOV-10, proposing confiscation of the goods. The penalty and fines in lieu of confiscation were computed as follows: penalty (equal to tax), i.e. Rs. 2,47,466/-; fine in lieu of confiscation of goods (i.e. equal to the value of the goods) Rs. 13,74,812/-; and fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance (equal to tax), amounting to Rs. 2,47,468/-. 2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner requested the release of the goods and vehicle on 25.02.2025 and also sought certified copies of the documents. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities supplied some of the documents to the petitioner by e-mail on 01.03.2025. The objection raised by the petitioner, challenging the show-cause notice under Section 130 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 4 S.C.C. 417 (S.C.), and the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Swastik Plastics vs. Commissioner of DGST, [2023] 156 taxmann.com 316 (Delhi). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hukum Chand Shyam Lal vs. Union of India & Ors., (1976) 2 S.C.C. 128 (S.C.). It was submitted that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain manner, it must be exercised in that manner or not be exercised at all. 3.2 Finally, reliance was also placed on the order dated 19.08.2026 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. G.R. Infra Projects Limited Ratlam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 11277 of 2026). It was submitted that the documents relied upon by the respondent authorities had not been supplied along with the show-cause notice and, hence, the same was required to be quashed and set aside. No further submission is made. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 4. Opposing the present writ petition and the foregoing submissions, learned AGP Mr. Raj Tanna, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner has an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner may be relegated to file an appeal before the appellate authority. ANALYSIS & OPINION : 6. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the materials placed on record. 7. At the outset, we may mention that, the availability of alternative efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under the provisions of Section 107 of the Act against the impugned order was pointed out to learned advocate Mr. Harjai. However, he nevertheless argued the matter on merits and sought to demonstrate writ petition can be entertained since there is violation of Rule 138B of the CGST Rules. 7.1 Rule 138B of the CGST Rules provides for verification of documents and conveyance by the Commissioner or by a proper officer empowered by him. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner, that in the present case, the proper officer is not empowered by the Commissioner. We have carefully examined the provisions of Rule 138B of the CGST Rules. Upon examination of the documents on record, we find that there is no violation of the said provisions, as the physical verification of the conveyance was carried out by the proper officer authorised by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of vehicles shall be done through such device readers where the e-way bill has been mapped with the said device. (3) The physical verification of conveyances shall be carried out by the proper officer as authorised by the Commissioner or an officer empowered by him in this behalf: Provided that on receipt of specific information on evasion of tax, physical verification of a specific conveyance can also be carried out by any other officer after obtaining necessary approval of the Commissioner or an officer authorised by him in this behalf."; Rule 138C - Inspection and verification of goods (1) A summary report of every inspection of goods in transit shall be recorded online by the proper officer in Part A of FORM GST EWB-03 within twenty four hours of inspection and the final report in Part B of FORM GST EWB-03 shall be recorded within three days of such inspection. Provided that where the circumstances so warrant, the Commissioner, or any other officer authorised by him, may, on sufficient cause being shown, extend the time for recording of the final report in Part B of FORM EWB-03, for a further period not exceeding three days. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority and illegal." After examining the scheme of the provisions of Section 68 of the CGST Act, governing the issuance of Form GST MOV-04 (physical verification report), Form GST MOV-06 (detention order), Form GST MOV-07 (notice for tax and penalty), and Form GST MOV-10 (notice for confiscation), as well as the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, this Court has set aside the orders issued in Form GST MOV-10 and directed the respondent authority to pass fresh orders in light of the observations made in the said judgment. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the proper officer issued a fresh MOV-10, showcause notice on 15.01.2026, and the petitioner was accordingly asked to remain physically present for a personal hearing on 22.01.2026. Along with the show cause notice, the proper officer supplied the documents of spot visit of M/s. N.K. Trading, M/s. A.S. Construction, and statement of driver of the conveyance. However, he did not choose to do so and instead filed a reply on 09.02.2026. After considering the aforesaid reply, the respondent authority issued the impugned order in Form GST MOV-11, ordering confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act read with Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the earlier round of litigation, the orders were quashed and set aside, and the matters were remanded. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice, was asked to remain present, and, after considering the petitioner's reply, the respondent authorities passed a detailed order. Thus, there is neither a breach of fundamental rights nor a violation of the principles of natural justice or an excess of jurisdiction. It is the case of the petitioner that the relevant documents were not supplied along with the show-cause notice and that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. However, we find that the requisite orders in Forms GST MOV-04 and MOV-06 were supplied to the person in charge of the conveyance, and thereafter, Form GST MOV-10 was also issued and supplied to the petitioner. The documents relating to the cancellation of the registration of the party with whom the petitioner was transacting business were also supplied. 10. At this stage, we may also refer to the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Powerline Air Express (supra), wherein the Delhi High Court, after considering the case of the assessee who had challenged the Order-in-....