Mathai M. V. Vs Senior Enforcement Officer (Kerala High Court)
The Kerala High Court, in the case of Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer, ruled that a confiscation order issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, is void if the notice to the vehicle owner was not served through statutorily recognized methods. The case involved Mathai M.V., whose truck was seized and subsequently confiscated for allegedly transporting goods without proper documentation. The petitioner argued that he never received a formal notice under Section 130, a prerequisite for confiscation proceedings. The respondent authorities, however, claimed that communication with the petitioner occurred via WhatsApp, and the confiscation was therefore lawful. A single judge initially dismissed the petition, stating the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of the confiscation order.
However, the writ appeal contended that WhatsApp is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Kerala High Court observed that Section 130(4) explicitly requires an opportunity of being heard for the conveyance owner before a confiscation order is issued. It found that the petitioner, as the registered owner, consistently maintained that no valid notice was served. The court emphasized that while WhatsApp communication was permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it no longer serves as a substitute for mandatory statutory service requirements. The court noted that the record lacked evidence of any formal notice under Section 130 being served on the petitioner, indicating a significant procedural flaw.
