No provisional release of seized vehicle under Sections 129/130 CGST Act pending confiscation proceedings.

JUDGMENT

The first petitioner is the registered taxpayer under the provisions of the CGST Act , and the 2nd petitioner is the registered driver of the vehicle bearing No. KL 17D 5306. On 24.02.2026, while certain scrap materials owned by the 1st petitioner were being transported in the vehicle referred to above, the officers under the GST Department intercepted the vehicle and found that the transportation was being made without proper documents. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized. According to the petitioner, the statutory formalities as contemplated under Ext.P9 Circular were not followed while affecting the seizure.

2. It was in these circumstances this writ petition was submitted seeking the following reliefs:

a) To quash the Exhibit P5 and P6 which were issued two years back date and it is void.

b) Direct the 4th respondent to release the intercepted truck without any fine and penalty.

c) Direct 4th respondent to release the truck on the base of Bond and Security for the release of seized goods as per rule 140 of the Central goods and services Tax 2017.

d) Direct the 3rd respondent to make department enquiry about the 4th respondent misbehaviour, coercion and threatening attitude.

e) Direct the 3rd respondent to take department action against the 4th respondent for the incorrect recording of statement of the 2nd Petitioner and threatening the 1st petition.

f) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice and for proper and effective adjudication of the case.

3. It was contended by petitioner that, in Ext.P5, which is issued in Form GST MOV 1, the date of issuance of the same is shown as 24.02.2024, whereas, the transaction was in the year 2026.

4. A counter affidavit has been submitted by the 4th respondent, wherein the details of the proceedings the respondents have taken, have been mentioned. According to the respondents, the order in Form MOV 2 and Report in Form MOV 5 were already issued, and the statements of the petitioners are also recorded. It is further averred that the matter is under investigation.

5. Today when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, upon instruction, submitted that notice under form GST MOV-10 has been issued for initiating proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act and the same is now pending consideration.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the reliefs sought by the petitioner as such cannot be considered.

7. While considering the relief sought by the petitioner, it is to be noted that, evidently the transportation was not accompanied with the documents as required by law. Even though the petitioner has certain explanation for the same, it is a matter to be examined by the authorities. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted on the release of the vehicle and goods as an interim measure, I am of the view that there is no provision under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act to provide provisional release of the vehicle. In M/s Authentic Metals v. Enforcement officer (2026 KLT OnLine 1328), even though this Court has held that, in the absence of an order of detention as contemplated under Section 129 (3), the respondents cannot retain the possession of the goods and conveyance, even if proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act are initiated, the said judgment has been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 555/2026.

Therefore, I am of the view that under no circumstances can the petitioner be granted the relief of releasing the goods and articles. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4^th respondent or any other competent o to finalize the proceedings initiat