HC Upholds Confiscation as Goods Transported Without E-Way Bill and Penalty Was Paid

Centax Editorial Board

May 28, 2026

• 2 min. read

Case Details: Vijay Laxmi Trading vs. State of Gujarat (2026) 42 Centax 232 (Guj.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

- A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri Aman Rewaria & Kartik P. Kachhawah, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Tanushree Shrimal, AGP, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the detention of goods and conveyance, confiscation proceedings, and consequential demand raised by the department under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act and the Gujarat GST Act. The record showed that the goods-laden vehicle was intercepted by the State tax authorities and detained in Form GST MOV-06 on the ground that the goods were being transported without an e-way bill. Thereafter, temporary GST registration was issued in Form GST Registration-12, a notice proposing confiscation of goods and conveyance and levy of penalty was issued in Form GST MOV-10, and a confiscation order was passed in Form GST MOV-11. The goods and conveyance were subsequently released in Form GST MOV-05 upon payment of tax and penalty, following which a show cause notice (SCN) in Form GST DRC-01 and a demand order in Form GST DRC-07 were issued. The petitioner contended that confiscation proceedings were unsustainable and further asserted that certain orders were either not supplied or could not be traced on the GST portal. The matter was placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the challenge raised by the petitioner was devoid of merit as the record established that all relevant forms and orders, including Forms GST MOV-05, GST MOV-10, and GST MOV-11, bore the petitioner’s signature and had also been uploaded on the GST portal. The High Court observed that the petitioner had suppressed material facts, including the contemporaneous release order issued upon payment of tax and penalty, and had taken inconsistent stands regarding non-supply and non-availability of the confiscation order. Further, the High Court observed that the goods were admittedly transported without an e-way bill and that the petitioner had voluntarily paid the tax and penalty without raising any objection at the relevant stage. The High Court, therefore, held that the invocation of section 130 of the CGST Act by the department could not be faulted in the facts of the case. The High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the detention, confiscation, and demand proceedings.