Case Title: M R Lub Industries & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Petition Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 14082 of 2024
Date of Judgement: 17 April 2025
Category of Dispute: Confiscation of goods and vehicle – Section 130 vs. Section 129
Relevant Provisions: Section 129 & 130 of the CGST Act, 2017; Rule 138 CGST Rules, 2017
Facts of the Case (Paras 2.1 – 2.4)
-
The petitioners’ goods were detained by police on 30 April 2022 as invoices and e-way bills were not produced at the time of interception.
-
Subsequently, GST authorities issued MOV-1 and MOV-2 in June 2022, almost two months after detention, and later issued a show cause notice in MOV-10 followed by an order of confiscation in MOV-11 under Section 130 of the CGST Act.
-
The confiscation was based solely on non-production of invoices and e-way bills, without other grounds.
Question(s) in Consideration
-
Whether confiscation of goods and vehicle under Section 130 of the CGST Act can be sustained where the only ground is non-production of invoice and e-way bill at the time of detention?
-
Whether authorities were correct in invoking Section 130 instead of Section 129, especially when the goods were no longer in transit at the time of MOV-1 issuance?
Observation of the Court (Paras 2.1 – 2.4, 3)
-
The appellate authority recorded reasons beyond the scope of the original order, which was confined to non-production of documents.
-
The Court noted that mere absence of invoice/e-way bill can only attract Section 129 (detention and penalty), not Section 130 (confiscation), as no fraudulent intent or evasion was alleged.
-
Issuance of MOV-1 and subsequent notices after two months of detention was questionable, particularly since the goods were no longer in transit.
Judgement of the Court (Para 3)
-
The Court issued notice returnable on 07 May 2025.
-
Direct service through email was permitted.
-
The Court indicated prima facie that confiscation under Section 130 was not sustainable, as the only reason cited was non-production of invoice/e-way bill, which falls within Section 129.
Between Fine Lines
-
The Court distinguished between detention/penalty under Section 129 and confiscation under Section 130.
-
Confiscation requires higher threshold such as intent to evade tax, not just missing documents.
-
Authorities cannot expand reasons at appellate stage beyond what was recorded in MOV-11.
-
Issuing MOV notices after months of detention raises procedural impropriety.
-
This case reaffirms that technical lapses cannot justify confiscation of goods/vehicle.
Summary of Referred Cases
(No other precedents were referred to in this order.)
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
