“C.R”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947 WA NO. 973 OF 2025 [AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2025 IN WP(C) NO.2082 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA]

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

MATHAI M.V., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VERKEY, RESIDING AT MANGALATH HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA P.O. PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683556.

BY ADV.SRI.FAIZEL K.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 THE SENIOR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT SQUAD NOT, ERNAKULAM, STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, SECOND FLOOR, SGST COMPLEX, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683542.

2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, DELHI, PIN – 110001.

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR. THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R”

JUDGMENT Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2025.

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 Pet