Case Law Details
Nitin Hiralal Jain Vs State Tax Officer (Gujarat High Court)
GST Confiscation Notice Upheld Due to Doubtful Locus of Petitioner; Confiscation Proceedings Sustained as Petitioner Fails to Prove Link with Goods; GST MOV-10 Notice Not Interfered With Due to Doubts of Tax Evasion; Petition Challenging GST Confiscation Notice Rejected Over Jurisdictional and Factual Gaps; No Relief Against GST Notice as Petitioner Not Proper Party to Challenge Proceedings.
The Gujarat High Court considered a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued in Form GST MOV-10 dated 29.01.2026, proposing confiscation of goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, a proprietary concern registered under the GST Act and assessed under Delhi GST authorities, had received an order for supply of S.S. scrap to a buyer in Gujarat. An E-way Bill dated 18.01.2026 was generated, and the goods were transported through a transporter. On 19.01.2026, the conveyance carrying the goods was intercepted at Surat by the respondent authorities. The driver produced the E-way Bill, following which physical verification was conducted, and Form GST MOV-02 and MOV-04 were issued. Subsequently, the goods were detained under Form GST MOV-06 on 21.01.2026 on allegations of upstream irregularities and suspicion of a bogus transaction.
The petitioner submitted a reply stating that the goods were accompanied by valid statutory documents and that no discrepancy was found during physical verification. Despite this, a show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-10 was issued on 29.01.2026 proposing confiscation. The petitioner challenged this notice, contending that it lacked jurisdiction and was based on allegations not supported by material evidence. It was argued that there was no finding of intent to evade tax, no indication that the goods were unaccounted, and no basis for invoking Section 130. The petitioner also asserted that the confiscation proceedings were a mechanical continuation of detention proceedings without independent satisfaction of statutory conditions.
The respondent authorities opposed the petition, contending that discrepancies existed in the documents relating to the movement of goods. It was pointed out that the E-way Bill indicated supply from Maharashtra to Gujarat, while the petitioner was registered in Delhi and not in Maharashtra. The transaction was not a “Bill to Ship” transaction, raising doubts about the petitioner’s connection with the goods. It was further submitted that multiple E-way Bills were involved and that the activity appeared to indicate tax evasion. The respondents also questioned the locus of the petitioner, arguing that the petitioner was not directly related to the goods and that the appropriate remedy lay with the supplier, recipient, or transporter.
Upon examination of the record, the Court observed that the petitioner’s locus to challenge the proceedings was doubtful. The E-way Bill showed dispatch from Maharashtra and delivery in Gujarat, while the petitioner was registered in Delhi. Since the transaction was not a “Bill to Ship” transaction, the petitioner’s connection with the goods and conveyance was unclear. On this ground alone, the Court held that the petition was liable to be dismissed.
The Court also noted that neither the supplier, recipient, nor transporter had taken steps to secure release of the goods or conveyance. Regarding the challenge to the show-cause notice, the Court referred to a decision of the Supreme Court, which held that it is premature for a High Court to examine issues such as tax evasion at the stage of a show-cause notice under Section 130. Such matters are to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings pursuant to the notice.
Further, the Court observed that confiscation proceedings can be invoked in cases involving absence of proper documents, fake or forged documentation, mismatch of goods, or other circumstances indicating intent to evade tax. In the present case, the material on record raised serious doubts regarding possible tax evasion, and the petitioner failed to establish a clear connection with the transaction.
In view of these findings, the Court declined to interfere with the show-cause notice issued under Section 130. It held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The rule was discharged accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ravish Bhatt for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Pooja Ashar for the respondents.
2. Rule, returnable 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. The facts culminated into filing of the present petition is that the petitioner is a proprietary concern registered under the Act and is assessed under the jurisdiction of Delhi GST authorities.
5.1 It is the case of the petitioner that in the due course of business, the petitioner had received an order for supply of S. S. Scrap to M/s. Savitri Alloys, Dehgam, Gujarat. For the same, a corresponding E-way Bill No. 771597979971 dated 18.01.2026 was generated and the goods were transported through Shreenath Roadlines.
5.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the conveyance carrying the goods was intercepted on 19.01.2026 at Kharel, Surat by Mobile Squad of the respondent authorities. The related E-way bill was produced by driver of the vehicle. Consequently, physical verification was conducted and Form GST MOV-02 dated 19.01.2026 was issued. Thereafter, physical verification was done and Form GST MOV-04 was issued and subsequently, detention of the goods was done by issuance of Form GST MOV-06 on 21.01.2026 alleging upstream irregularities and further alleging that the transaction was bogus and suspicious.
5.3 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 22.01.2026 in Form GST MOV-06, inter alia, contending that the movement of goods were supported by valid statutory documents and no discrepancy was recorded on physical verification and, therefore, there cannot be any ground for detention or confiscation. However, the respondent authorities 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 Section 130 of the Act without existence or disclosure of jurisdictional facts within the framework of statutory preconditions. No material establishes intent to evade tax relatable to the intercepted consignment.
6.1 It is further submitted that the impugned Form GST MOV-10 invokes multiple limbs of Section 130(1) of the Act without clause-specific satisfaction and existence cum disclosure of foundational facts vesting jurisdiction. There is no finding that the petitioner supplied or transported goods with intent to evade tax, that the goods were unaccounted, that the conveyance was used for evasion.
6.2 It is further submitted that the impugned confiscation proceedings are not founded upon any independent formation of opinion under Section 130 of the Act but constitute a mechanical continuation of detention proceedings. In absence of interception-stage material disclosing confiscation ingredients, and in absence of any adjudication under Section 129(3) of the Act, the assumption of confiscation jurisdiction is without statutory foundation.
7. Per contra, Ms. Pooja Ashar, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petition is frivolous inasmuch as there were discrepancies noted in the documents which were forming part of the movement of the goods. Further, it was pointed out that the E-way Bill, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, shows the supply of goods from Maharashtra-Pune, and shows the place of delivery of goods as Dehgam, Gujarat. 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 submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Ashar has prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
8. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, there are certain aspects which require observation. The E-way bill that the petitioner relies on shows the dispatch from Maharashtra-Pune. The petitioner is not a registered dealer in Maharashtra. The recipient is one M/s. Savitri Steel Alloys, Gujarat. Further, it has been categorically remarked by the respondent in the affidavit-in-reply that the E-way Bill categorically shows that the transaction is not Bill to Ship transaction. Therefore, the locus of the present petitioner vis-a-vis the goods and conveyance in question are in serious doubt. The petitioner has preferred the writ petition in connection to E-way Bill No. 771597979971 and the same shows the dispatch from Maharashtra and receipt in Gujarat. The present petitioner being a registered dealer of Delhi and the E-way Bill not being Bill to Ship transaction, the locus of the petitioner is in serious doubt. The petition is required to be dismissed on this ground alone.
9. On perusal of the impugned show-cause notice, it appears that neither the supplier of the goods nor the recipient or the transporter, who is the owner of the Truck in question, has made any attempt to release the goods or conveyance.
10. The third aspect is with regards to challenge to show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-10. Ms. Ashar, learned 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:
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. However, at the same time, the order passed by the High Court releasing the goods in question is not to be interfered with as it is reported that the goods have been released by the appropriate authority”.
10.1 Further, this Court in case of M/s. Panchhi Traders Through its Authorised Signatory Narendra Danabhai Daki v. State of Gujarat rendered in SCA No. 9250 of 2020 and allied matters has observed that the invocation of confiscation of goods can be undertaken if there is issue such as absence of documents or fake or forged documents, absence of details of dealer, forged E-way bills, a complete deceptive/ divergence/ mismatch of goods, fake registration, etc., which established the ‘intention to evade payment of tax’. The petitioner herein is not able to establish his locus show-casing how he is the supplier of the goods from Maharashtra when the transaction is not Bill to Ship transactions. Further, perusing the material on record, and there is serious doubt about the evasion of tax qua the documents produced, this Court would refrain itself from interfering with the show-cause notice issued in Form G ST MOV-10 dated 29.01.2026. The documents clearly reflect ingenuity as mentioned in the impugned show-cause notice.
11. In wake of the above, the present writ petition is meritless and is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Author Bio
