Case Details: Panchhi Traders vs. State of Gujarat (2025) 37 Centax 260 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv., Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, Avinash Poddar, Jatin Harjai, Chetan K. Pandya, Monal S. Chaglani, Uchit N. Sheth, Hardik P. Modh & Sujay Adeshra, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Kamal Trivedi, Adv. General, Harshvardhan Sharma, Utkarsh Sharma, Ms. Shrunjal Shah, Vinay Bairagra & Ms. Nimisha Parekh, Assistant Government Pleaders, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners were dealers whose conveyances carrying goods were intercepted during transit, after which the goods and conveyances were detained and seized under Section 129 of the CGST and the Gujarat GST Act. Subsequently, the proper officers issued confiscation notices in Form GST MOV-10 by invoking Section 130, proceeding on the basis that the alleged tax contravention noticed at the stage of interception itself warranted confiscation. The petitioners contended that, after the statutory amendments, proceedings relating to detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit under Section 129 were delinked from confiscation proceedings under Section 130, and that the authorities had mechanically invoked Section 130 without forming any concrete opinion regarding intention to evade tax. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The Gujarat High Court held that Sections 129 and 130 operate in distinct spheres, with Section 129 constituting a self-contained and complete code for dealing with contraventions relating to goods in transit. It was held that confiscation under Section 130, which has grave consequences as the goods or conveyance vest in the government, can be resorted to only upon formation of a clear opinion, based on tangible material, of an intention to evade tax, and not on mere suspicion or ipse dixit of the proper officer. The Court held that the proper officer must examine the genuineness of invoices, e-way bills, consignment notes, and registration particulars produced at the time of interception, and that intention to evade tax cannot be inferred from acts or omissions of persons not directly or proximately linked to the dealer. It was further held that, since confiscation is a last resort, where no such opinion is formed, the conveyance is required to be released, though goods so released may subsequently be subjected to confiscation if serious incriminating material is later found, in accordance with Section 130 read with Section 129 of the CGST and the Gujarat GST Act.
List of Cases Cited
- ASP Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh — (2025) 32 Centax 446 (S.C.) = 2025 (100) G.S.T.L. 257 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Paras 13, 66]
- Dhanlaxmi Metals v. State of Gujarat — 2022 (67) G.S.T.L. 63 (Guj.) — Distinguished [Paras 15, 55]
- Mohammad Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana — (2025) 2 SCC 49 — Referred [Paras 29, 56]
- Rajeev Traders v. Union of India — 2022 (66) G.S.T.L. 15 (Kar.) — Distinguished [Paras 20, 55]
- Shiv Enterprises v. State of Punjab — 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 385 (P&H.) — Referred [Paras 20]
- State of W.B. v. Sujit Kumar Rana — (2004) 4 SCC 129 — Distinguished [Paras 20, 66]
- State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. — (2004) 10 SCC 201 — Distinguished [Paras 18, 66]
- Synergy Fertichem Private Limited v. State of Gujarat — 2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 513 (Guj.) — Followed [Paras 26, 28, 31, 32, 55, 56, 65]
