Case Law Details
Vijay Laxmi Trading Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
The Gujarat High Court heard a writ petition seeking quashing of a show cause notice issued in Form GST DRC-01, an order of detention in Form GST MOV-06, a confiscation order in Form GST MOV-11, and the consequent demand order issued in Form GST DRC-07.
At the outset, the Court advised the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, but the petitioner insisted on an order on merits. The petitioner argued that the impugned actions were illegal because no order for physical verification of the conveyance had been passed and the computation of penalty was not provided at the time of interception of the vehicle on 22.07.2025. It was also contended that all orders had been uploaded on the GST portal in a consolidated manner, making it difficult for the petitioner to identify the confiscation order in Form GST MOV-11.
The petitioner further submitted that the authorities had issued an order in Form MOV-05 on 08.10.2025 even though the goods and conveyance had already been released on 26.07.2025. According to the petitioner, valid GST invoices had been produced, tax and penalty had already been paid, and therefore confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Act were not justified. Reliance was also placed on an earlier decision of the High Court in support of the contention that confiscation was not warranted.
The State opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal. The State also submitted that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. It produced the release order in Form MOV-05 dated 26.07.2025 bearing the petitioner’s acknowledgment and signature, showing that the goods and conveyance were released after payment of the required penalty. The State further submitted that no objection regarding the quantum of penalty had been raised at that stage. According to the State, the Form MOV-11 confiscation order dated 26.07.2025 had also been physically served upon the petitioner and bore the petitioner’s signature. The authorities justified the invocation of Section 130 on the ground that the goods were being transported without an e-way bill.
The High Court observed that the petitioner attempted to build the case on the basis that the release order dated 08.10.2025 did not mention confiscation of goods and conveyance. However, the Court found that the original release order in Form MOV-05 was actually dated 26.07.2025 and clearly recorded release of goods after payment of tax and penalty. The Court noted that the petitioner suppressed this release order.
During the hearing, the petitioner initially claimed that Form GST MOV-11 had never been supplied. However, when the State produced the document bearing the petitioner’s signature, the stand was altered by arguing that the order could not be identified among the documents uploaded on the portal. The Court described this explanation as a “lame excuse” and held that the petitioner had suppressed material facts.
The Court further noted that the petitioner also incorrectly stated that no written release order had been issued at the time of release on 26.07.2025. When the Court asked about Form GST MOV-10, the petitioner asserted that no such notice had been issued. However, the State produced Form GST MOV-10 dated 26.07.2025 bearing the petitioner’s signature. The Court observed that this was another attempt to mislead the Court through false statements. The Court also recorded that all original forms uploaded on the portal bore the petitioner’s signature.
Additionally, the Court noted that temporary GST registration in Form GST Registration-12 had been issued to the petitioner on 26.07.2025, but this fact was also not disclosed before the Court.
SEO-Friendly Titles with Descriptions
Gujarat High Court Dismisses GST Petition Due to Suppression of Material Facts
Gujarat HC Refuses Relief After Petitioner Allegedly Misled Court on GST MOV Orders
SEO Description: The Court dismissed the writ petition after finding that the petitioner made incorrect statements about non-service of Forms GST MOV-10 and MOV-11, despite records showing signed acknowledgments.
Voluntary Payment of GST Penalty Weakens Later Challenge to Confiscation Proceedings: Gujarat HC
SEO Description: The Gujarat High Court observed that the petitioner had voluntarily paid tax and penalty at the time of release of goods and raised objections only later before the Court.
Gujarat High Court Rejects GST Writ Petition Over False Statements Regarding Confiscation Notice
SEO Description: The Court held that the petitioner attempted to mislead the Court by denying receipt of confiscation notices and release orders that were signed and acknowledged.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 08.10.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-01, the order of detention dated 08.10.2025 issued in Form GST MOV-06, the confiscation order dated 08.10.2025 issued in Form GST MOV-11 and the consequent demand order issued in Form GST DRC-07.
2. At the outset, we had advised Learned advocate Mr.Aman Rewaria for learned advocate Mr.Kartik Kachhawah appearing for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, however, he has invited order on merits.
3. It is submitted that the impugned action of the respondent is required to be quashed and set-aside as no order with regard to physical verification of the conveyance was passed and the computation of the penalty levied on the petitioner was also not provided by the concerned officer, on the interception of vehicle on 22.07.2025, hence such action is required to be quashed. It is submitted that all the orders were in consolidated manner placed on the portal and the petitioner could not identify the order passed under Form GST MOV-11, hence he could not produce it in the writ petition.
4. It is submitted that in fact the respondent competent authority passed the order in Form MOV-05 on 08.10.2025 whereas the goods and conveyance in fact were released on 26.07.2025 and he is not disputing the same. He has submitted that valid GST invoices were produced at the relevant time and the tax and penalty were already paid and the question of confiscation of goods does not arise. He has also submitted that the goods were not required to be confiscated by invoking Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’). In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in SCA No.9250 of 2020 dated 11.12.2025 in the case of M/s. Panchhi Traders through its authorised signatory Narendra Danabhai Daki vs. State of Gujarat Through Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) & Another.
Thus, it is urged that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Tanushree Shrimal has submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy in filing Appeal under the provision of Section 107 of the Act. It is submitted the petitioner has not come out with clean hands and she has tendered the Release Order MOV-05 dated 26.07.2025 acknowledged by the petitioner in his own handwriting. It is submitted that the goods and conveyance were released on 26.07.2025 at 5.30 p.m., after the petitioner had paid the requisite amount of penalty. She has further submitted that no grievance of any kind was raised at the relevant time and so far as the order dated 08.10.2025 in Form MOV-05 is concerned, the same is electronically uploaded on the Portal and categorically mentioned that the goods and conveyance are released on 26.07.2025. She has further submitted that the Form MOV-11 dated 26.07.2025 was also phsycially tendered to the petitioner and the same also bears its signature. Finally it is submitted that in absence of e-way bill, the respondent authority has resorted to invoking the provisions of Section 130 of the Act.
6. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We would like to mention that the petitioner has tried to carve out the case initially on the release order GST MOV-05, dated 08.10.2025, by mentioning that in fact the same does not mention any order of confiscation of goods and conveyance. We may mention, at this stage, that original release order MOV-05 is dated 26.07.2025 bearing the signature of the petitioner by which the goods and conveyance were released on the payment of tax and penalty by the petitioner. No grievance was made by the petitioner at that stage with regard to quantum of the penalty imposed. The order MOV-05 dated 26.07.2025 in fact was uploaded on portal on 08.10.2025 along with all other orders. Hence, the document at page-78 is the date bearing the uploading of the order MOV-05 dated 26.07.2025. Hence, on this count, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has suppressed the release order dated 26.07.2025 MOV-05.
6.1 During the course of dictation of this order, learned advocate Mr.Rewaria has tried to convey this Court that the order dated 26.07.2025 FORM GST-11 confiscating the goods and conveyance, was never supplied to the petitioner and in fact he was compelled to pay the penalty and, on such payment, the goods and conveyance were released. He has submitted that though the respondent authority had taken the signature of the petitioner, however a copy of the order was never served to him and it is not uploaded on the Portal. Thus, initially, a statement was made before us that the order dated 26.07.2025 FORM GST-11 was never supplied, and when learned AGP has produced, the stand is altered, and it is contended that since all the documents were uploaded on the portal, the petitioner was unable to find the same. This is a lame excuse tendered by learned advocate Mr. Rewaria in suppressing the order dated 26.07.2025. It is pertinent to note that the original copy on FORM GST-11 bears the signature of the petitioner.
6.2. Learned advocate Mr. Rewaria has attempted to mislead this Court by contenting that on 26.07.2025 at 5.30 p.m., when the goods and conveyance were released by the State Tax Officer vide release order MOV-05, though the same are release, a copy of the same was not provided to the petitioner. In fact it is noted by us that the petitioner has made false and incorrect statement in Para-6.8 of the Petition by saying that on 26.07.2025, when the goods and conveyance were physically released by the respondents, no written release order was issued contemporaneously at that time. During the course of hearing when this Court inquired from learned advocate Mr. Rewaria for the petitioner to point out the Form GST MOV-10 i.e. notice for confiscation of goods and conveyance and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the Act, learned advocate Mr. Rewaria for the petitioner has asserted that no such Form GST MOV-10 has been issued. At this stage, learned AGP Ms. Shrimal has in fact tendered the copy of Form GST MOV-10 dated 26.07.2025, also bears the signature of the petitioner. This is the second attempt which is made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to mislead this Court by making an false statement. We have also perused the original FORMS uploaded on the portal. All the documents bear signature of the petitioner.
6.3 It is also noticed by us that on 26.07.2025, the respondent authorities also issued the temporary GST Registration to the petitioner in Form GST Registration 12. This fact is also not pointed out to us.
7. We have also examined the nature of illegality committed by the petitioner since it is recorded in GST MOV-06 that the goods and conveyance were required to be detained since the goods were transported without any e-way bill. Thus, the petitioner was transporting the goods without any E-way Bill and he has voluntarily paid the amount of penalty without raising any objection and for the first time, the same has been raised before this Court, that too by suppressing the correct facts.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and is required to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. We are restraining ourself in imposing any cost in the writ petition for making misleading statement. A photocopy of MOV-10 along with the photo-copies of other documents, are ordered to be taken on record.
Author Bio
