Department cannot overrule the order passed by Hon’ble High Court.

Case Title: ABB India Ltd. v. Union of India

Court: High Court of Gujarat

Petition Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 728 of 2020, Civil Application (For Orders) No. 2 of 2020

Category of Dispute: Detention and Seizure of Goods under GST – Section 129(6) and Section 130 of the CGST Act

Date of Judgement: 11th February 2020

Relevant Sections: Section 129(3), 129(6), 130 of the CGST Act, 2017

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner, ABB India Ltd., had four consignments of electrical goods detained by GST authorities, and a notice was issued under Section 129(3) in Form GST-MOV-07 on 31.12.2019 [Para 3–4].
2. On 09.01.2020, a demand order in Form GST-MOV-09 was issued, directing tax and penalty totalling Rs. 1,00,81,944/- [Para 5].
3. The Gujarat High Court on 10.01.2020 directed provisional release of goods and conveyance on deposit of 50% as tax and furnishing a bank guarantee for the remaining 50% as penalty [Para 6].
4. ABB India complied with the Court’s order by 24.01.2020 [Para 6–7].
5. Despite this compliance, the authorities issued four notices in Form GST-MOV-10 on 05.02.2020, stating delayed compliance beyond the 14-day period prescribed in Section 129(6) [Para 6–7].

Questions in Consideration

1. Whether issuance of notices in Form GST-MOV-10 under Section 129(6) was justified after compliance with the High Court’s interim order? [Para 8–9]
2. Can the period under Section 129(6) override a court-directed compliance timeline for deposit and guarantee? [Para 10]

Observations of the Court

1. The Court held that the authorities had misconstrued the earlier interim order dated 10.01.2020 and wrongly invoked Section 129(6) [Para 8].
2. The officers calculated the 14-day compliance period from the date of GST-MOV-06 (31.12.2019) without considering the Court’s order, which superseded statutory timelines [Para 9–10].
3. Since the entire action of issuing GST-MOV-10 was solely based on Section 129(6) and no other grounds existed, such notices had no legal basis once court-ordered compliance was made [Para 11]

Judgement of the Court

1. The High Court quashed all four notices issued in Form GST-MOV-10 dated 05.02.2020 [Para 12].
2. It held that once compliance with the interim directions of the Court was made, Section 129(6) had no independent application for further proceedings under Section 130 [Para 12].
3. Rule was made absolute, allowing the application in favour of the petitioner [Para 12].

Between Fine Lines

• ABB India Ltd. was granted relief as it complied with the High Court’s interim order, despite delayed statutory payment.
• GST officers misapplied Section 129(6), ignoring the overriding court direction.
• The Court protected the sanctity of judicial orders over administrative timelines.
• Detention proceedings cannot continue under Section 130 once the Court’s conditions are fulfilled.
• MOV-10 notices were thus struck down as legally untenable.

Issue- In the above case, Goods and vehicle of petitioner was detained by respondent authority where Hon’ble High Court has ordered the petitioner to deposit the amount towards tax and penalty for release of goods and vehicle. Abiding the orders of Hon’ble High Court Petitioner deposited the respective amount towards tax and penalty. Respondent authority again issued a notice in Form-GST-MOV-10.

Summary of Referred Cases