Penalty Paid Under Duress for Goods Release Refundable Without MOV-09 Order

Centax Editorial Board

December 3, 2025

• 2 min. read

Case Details: R.G. Group vs. Union of India (2025) 36 Centax 316 (Tripura)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, CJ. & S. Datta Purkayastha, J.
S/Shri Samar Das & Kaushik Paul, Advs., for the Petitioner.
S/Shri P. Gautam, Sr. G.A., B. Majumder, Deputy S.G.I & S. Choudhury, Adv., for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, engaged in transporting electrical goods, challenged the detention of goods and the consequent penalty proposed under Section 129 of the CGST Act and the Tripura State GST Act. It was recorded that the goods were detained at Bagma, Gomati, on the grounds of expired e-way bills and vehicle mismatch, although MOV-04 noted no discrepancy upon physical verification. MOV-06 and MOV-07 were issued proposing a penalty, and the petitioner sought EWB-03 Part A/B while filing a detailed reply supported by the supplier’s GSTR-1 and relying on MOV-04. The department acknowledged that EWB-03 could not be uploaded due to a portal glitch. Pursuant to an earlier writ directing the authority to conclude proceedings after hearing and permitting release on security, the petitioner paid the proposed penalty through DRC-03 solely to secure release and immediately sought issuance of MOV-09 within the time prescribed for appeal. Despite the issuance of a hearing notice, no MOV-09 order was passed. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the issuance of MOV-07 satisfied the first limb of Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, but the statutory requirement to pass a speaking order in MOV-09 after considering the petitioner’s reply continued to subsist irrespective of the petitioner’s payment. The Court observed that the payment made through DRC-03 was under economic duress to secure the release of the goods and did not amount to acceptance of liability or waiver of rights. It further held that, in the absence of a reasoned order confirming penalty, the levy and collection under Section 129(1) lacked authority of law and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The High Court accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed a refund of the entire penalty with interest at 9 per cent from the date of payment until the refund.