Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J., BASANT BALAJI, JJ.
Mathai M.V., S/o. Verkey - Appellant
Versus
The Senior Enforcement Officer - Respondent
WA No. 973 of 2025
Decided on : 24-06-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The core issue in the case revolves around the validity of the notice served to the owner of the vehicle prior to confiscation under Section 130 of the relevant Act. The court emphasized that proper service of notice is a statutory requirement that must be strictly adhered to for the confiscation order to be valid (!) .
The Court found that the notice purportedly served via WhatsApp communication does not satisfy the statutory modes of service outlined in Section 169 of the Act of 2017, which prescribes methods such as direct service, registered post, or publication. The use of WhatsApp communication was deemed acceptable only during the COVID-19 pandemic and is no longer a valid mode of service (!) .
The absence of proper notice invalidates the confiscation proceedings, as the owner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order of confiscation was issued. This procedural lapse renders the confiscation order void and without jurisdiction (!) .
The court relied on the principle that proceedings under Section 130 are jurisdictionally dependent on proper service of notice to the owner. Without such service, the proceedings are considered invalid (!) .
The case highlights that the confiscation order and proceedings were quashed and set aside due to the procedural deficiency, specifically the failure to serve valid notice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with the authority instructed to serve proper notice as per statutory requirements and to afford the owner an opportunity of hearing (!) .
The court clarified that it did not examine the merits of the confiscation action itself, only the procedural aspect concerning notice. The judgment does not affect confiscation orders related to goods for which the owner is different or not involved (!) .
The decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with statutory procedures for notice service under the relevant Act, emphasizing that deviations, such as reliance on informal communication methods, invalidate confiscation proceedings.
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of writ petition for lack of notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondent contends misrepresentation by petitioner. (Para 4) |
| 3. service of notice prior to confiscation essential. (Para 5 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. confiscation proceedings invalid due to lack of notice. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. appeal allowed, proceedings quashed. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
Being aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.2082 of 2025 by the judgment dated 11 April 2025, the Original Petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 5 of the KERALA HIGH COURT ACT , 1958.
2. The Petitioner filed the writ petition stating that he is the owner of a truck bearing registration No. KL-31 J-5759. According to him, on 23 November 2024, his truck transported bilge water from INS Vikramaditya at the Cochin Wharf. On 25 November 2024, the Respondents – Authorities moved the truck to a Truck parking place. On 10 January 2025, the Petitioner received a copy of the detention order, which stated that a notice under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act of 2017) was served on the consignor, Petro Chemicals, for alleged tax evasion.
3. The Petitioner challenged the detention, and the confiscation order issued under the Act of 2017 by filing W.P.(C) No. 2082 of 2025 on 17 January 2025. The Petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that he had no knowledge or involvement in the alleged tax evasion and the vehicle was hired only to transport goods. He asserted that no notice or copy of the detention and confiscation orders pertaining to the vehicle was served on him.
4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Respondent No.1, contending that the Petitioner has approached the Court with unclean hands by misrepresenting facts. It was stated that, upon contacting the driver of the truck, it was found that no documents have been entrusted to him. The order of confiscation dated 21 December 2024 was duly received by the Petitioner. It was contended that on merits, the Petitioner does not have a good case. It was specifically asserted by the Respondents that there were repeated communications with the Petitioner through WhatsApp.
5. The learned Single Judge noted the contention of the Petitioner that he was not served with any notice or copy of the order of confiscation dated 21 December 2024 issued under Section 130 of the Act of 2017. The learned Single Judge also noted that the Petitioner had endorsed in the order dated 10 January 2025 that he had received the order. It was stated that the writ petition was filed on 17 January 2025 and there was no reference to the receipt of the order of confiscation. The learned Single Judge found that the contention regarding non-service of the confiscation order on the Petitioner cannot be accepted, and the petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment, leaving it open to the Petitioner to proceed as per the Act of 2017. Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard Mr. Faizel K., learned counsel for the Petitioner, and Dr. Thushara James, learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. There are two different facets. Service of notice prior to confiscation and service of confiscation order.
8. The primary contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that no notice was issued to the Petitioner prior to the order dated 21 December 2024 passed under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 confiscating the vehicle No. KL-31 J-5759. Therefore, two questions arise. Firstly, whether a notice was served prior to the order under Section 130 of the Act of 2017, and secondly, whether a copy of the order passed under Section 130 was sent.
9. The order dated 21 December 2024 issued under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 was placed on record by way of additional counter affidavit in the writ petition. The order states that notice was given to the driver of the vehicle, Mr. Mari Selvam, and his statement was recorded. The order also states that notice was also stated to have been
Notice under Section 130 of the Act must be served in accordance with statutory requirements, failing which confiscation orders are invalid.
The petitioner must pursue appellate remedies under the CGST Act rather than a writ petition as the order of confiscation had been served properly.
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.
Point of law: The extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing for release of the vehicles or goods, during the pendency of the confiscation, can only be sparingly exercised ....
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 failure to comply with statutory requirements for notice and opportunity to contest confiscation renders the order invalid, violating principles of natural justice.
Point of Law - Section 68 of the GST Act which empowers the authority concerned to intercept the vehicle and the goods. The said provision of Section 68 is required to be reproduced.
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
