Case Law Details
Wastepe India Private Limited Vs Commissioner (Uttarakhand High Court)
The Uttarakhand High Court examined a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.03.2026 passed under Section 130 of the GST Act, whereby the petitioner’s goods and vehicle were confiscated. The petitioner contended that the order was issued without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, in violation of statutory requirements. The revenue acknowledged that the impugned order did not indicate that any personal hearing was granted, although it argued that the petitioner’s written reply had been considered.
The Court observed that Section 130 of the GST Act mandates that no confiscation order can be passed without giving the affected person an opportunity of being heard. It held that mere consideration of a written reply does not satisfy this requirement. Since the impugned order lacked any indication of compliance with the mandatory hearing requirement, the Court found it legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the confiscation order and remitted the matter back to the competent authority for fresh adjudication after providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.03.2026 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 130 of the Central / State GST Act confiscating the vehicle and the goods of the petitioner.
2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this regard, specific averment has been made in Paragraph-20 of the writ petition.
3. Puja Banga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, concedes that in the impugned order, there is no indication that any opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner. She submits that the reply, submitted by the petitioner, has been duly considered.
4. The requirement of Section 130 of the Act is that no confiscation of goods or conveyance shall be ordered without giving the person opportunity of being heard. Therefore, mere consideration of the reply would not be compliance of the statutory provisions.
5. As there is no indication in the impugned order that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 2 for passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
Author Bio
