Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SONIA GOKANI, MAUNA M. BHATT
BLACKART CERAMIC LLP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash and set aside the notice issued in Form GST MOV-10 dated 15.11.2022 under Section 130 of the Central/Gujarat/Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“GST Act” hereinafter) as well as the notice order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 dated 15.11.2022 under Section 129 of the Act. The appropriate directions are being sought against the respondent authorities for immediate release of the Truck bearing Registration No. GJ-10-TX-7383 along with the goods contained therein seized under the GST Act.
2. The petitioner is Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Firm filing this petition through one of the partners who is a citizen of this Country. Respondent no. 1 is a Commissioner of State Tax and exercises jurisdiction under the provisions of GST Act within the State of Gujarat.
2.1. The petitioner is engaged in trading of ceramics and scrap and is r
The court established that confiscation under Section 130 requires prior action under Section 129, and adherence to natural justice is essential in such proceedings.
Natural justice requirements necessitate notice to affected parties; however, notice to the driver suffices, supporting reliance on alternative statutory remedies for contesting orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the independence of proceedings for detention of goods under Section 129 and confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the CGST/APGST Act, as expl....
The court held that writ petitions against show cause notices are not entertained, emphasizing the need for competent authorities to investigate the facts and circumstances of each case.
The court cannot entertain writ petitions against show cause notices; such matters must be verified by the competent authorities.
The authority must have jurisdiction to impose penalties; lack of proper authority invalidates orders regarding the detention and valuation of goods.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article