Redon Lithium Industries LLP vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
1
APHC010574462025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3529] MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 29645/2025 Between:
REDON LITHIUM INDUSTRIES LLP, NO.91, 1ST STAGE, SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, DOBASPET INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 111. GSTIN 29ABEFR4424Q1ZK A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED PERSON SHRI SHAIK SHAKEEL AHMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
M/S. ADMS MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,, II FLOOR, CTS 4857/64, PLOT NO. 165, SADHASIVANAGAR, BELGAUM. GSTIN 29AAUCA1631Q1ZY
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED PERSON SHRI SHAIK SHAKEEL AHMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
M/S. K R FOODS,, PLOT NO 14/P, CIE GANDHI NAGAR EXTN, IDA, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 037. GSTIN 36AAWFK6206E1Z5 A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY AUTHORISED PERSON SHRI SHAIK SHAKEEL AHMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, (ST)-1 OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) ANANTAPUR CIRCLE -1, D.NO.19-1-558-2-1, SECOND FLOOR, PAR HEIGHTS BUILDING, GOOTY ROAD, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 005. 2
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (COMMERCIAL TAX), A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELEGAPUDI.
...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toa. pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order quashing the proceedings of Respondentvide the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 in Form GST MOV-11 in Order No. 1332952 (Annexure-PI) under section 130 of the APGST Act/CGST Act, 2017, levying Penalty and Fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods, as the said impugned order is passed without juri iction, not only flouting the principles of natural Justice but also in total contravention of the provisions of the GST Act, provisions of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 269A, 300A, 301 of the Constitution of India. b. To grant any other relief/(s) this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to direct the respondent to forthwith release the goods and the conveyance confiscated in the proceedings initiated vide impugned order dated 27.09.2025 in Form GST MOV-H passed by the respondent in Order No. 1332952 under section 130 of the APGST Act/CGST Act, 2017, by giving necessary directions to the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court deems fit IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to Stay the operation of the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 in Form GST MOV-11 passed by the respondent in Order No. 1332952 under section 130 of the APGST Act/CGST Act, 2017 in proceedings levying Penalty and Fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods as per Annexure-PI, and any further proceedings arising out of it thereto; and/or grant any other relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 2. 3
The Court made the following order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The 1st petitioner initiated transport of Lithium Batteries on account of sale of such batteries to the 2nd petitioner. However, the 1st petitioner sought to send these batteries from Bengaluru in Karnataka State to Toopran Medak, situated in Telangana State.
While the goods were in movement, on 19.09.2025, the 1st respondent had seized the said goods as well as the vehicle in which the goods were being transported on the ground that movement of goods were suspicious and that seizure and confiscation proceedings would have to be initiated unless appropriate material is placed before the 1st respondent to show cause why such action should not be taken.
It is the case of the 1st petitioner that immediately after receipt of the notice, issued by the 1st respondent, after the vehicle has been stopped, the necessary documents and the explanation as to why the goods were being moved from the place of business of the 1st petitioner to the place of business of the 3rd petitioner were furnished. In the reply, they stated that though the batteries had been sold to the 2nd petitioner, the same were required by the 2nd petitioner to be delivered at the place of business of the 3rd petitioner as these batteries were to be installed in electric vehicles which were being supplied by the 2nd petitioner to the 3rd petitioner.
The 1st respondent after receiving the said explanation, by Order dated 27.09.2025, confiscated the said goods under the powers vested in him, under section 130 of the CGST Act.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the said action of the 1st respondent have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition contending that the said action of the 1st respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice as well as being without juri iction, as the necessary
4
juri ictional facts for invoking the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of CGST Act were not available in the present case.
The 1st petitioner, while initiating had it’s the movement of batteries from Karnataka State where the 1st petitioner’s place of business, had issued an invoice as well as e-way bill which was generated on 19.09.2025 at 6.35 pm. In the invoice, the consignor was the 1st petitioner, the buyer was the 2nd petitioner and consignee was the 3rd petitioner. The address of the 3rd petitioner, in the GST invoice was Shed No.2, Plot No.723 besides Shiva Reddy Dhaba, NH 44, Toopran Medak, Telangana State - 502334. The Address of the 2nd petitioner was shown to be situated in Belgaum, Karnataka State. The e-way bill generated on 19.09.2025 at 6.35 pm shows that the goods were being dispatched from the place of business of the 1st petitioner to the 2nd petitioner with the address of consignment shown to the Shed No.2, Plot No.723 besides Shiva Reddy Dhaba, NH 44, Toopran Medak, Telangana State – 502334. 7. The 1st respondent, after stopping the conveyance, in which the goods were being transported, recorded the statement of the driver in Form of GST MOV-1, and thereafter issued an order for Physical verification in the Form of GST MOV-2. After such verification, the 1st respondent recorded that he doubted the credentials of the transaction goods vehicle along with documents which needs further verification and necessary action as per APGST Act, 2017. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, on 20.09.2025 issued Form GST MOV-06, which is an order of detention under Section 129 of the GST Act. In this Form, the 1st respondent recorded that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of interception of goods, had produced the invoice as well as e-way bill issued by the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent went on to record that since goods were being transported to Toopran Medak, Telangana while the registered address of the 2nd petitioner was only in Belgaum, there was need to verify the credentials of the movement of goods. The 1st respondent thereafter issued endorsement dated 20.09.2025, fixing the fine in lieu of
5
confiscation at Rs.5,93,500/-. After issuance of this endorsement, the 1st respondent also issued Form GST MOV-10, which is the notice for confiscation of goods and levy of penalty.
The 1st and 2nd petitioners had thereupon filed a reply to the Form of MOV-10 issued on 20.09.2025, through their counsel on 25.09.2025. In this reply, the petitioners contended that there was no illegal transport of goods and that all the details of the transport were set out of the invoice as well as the e-way bill and as such there was no ground for initiating proceedings for seizure or confiscation of the goods.
The 1st respondent rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and passed an Order for confiscation on 27.09.2025 in Form GST MOV-11. 10. The sum and substance of the grounds on which the Order of confiscation was passed are:- a) The goods were purchased by the 2nd petitioner but the goods are sought to be transported to the 3rd petitioner without any documentary evidence. Further, the e-way bill shows the address of consignee Shed No.2, Plot No.723 besides Shiva Reddy Dhaba, NH 44, Toopran Medak, Telangana State, which is different from the registered additional place of business of the 2nd petitioner and the same shows that it was done intentionally. However, the 1st respondent, in the very same order, records that the registered additional place of business of the 3rd petitioner was Sy.No.723/A, Toopran Medak, Telangana.
The 1st respondent also took the stand that no documents have been produced by the petitioners, at the time of filing of reply and as such the goods require to be confiscated.
A perusal of the above record, shows that the invoice as well as e-way bill of 19.09.2025 were produced before the 1st respondent at the time,
6
the vehicle was stopped for inspection. The invoice read with e-way bill shows that the seller of the goods was the 1st petitioner, the buyer of goods was the 2nd petitioner and that the goods were being consigned to the 3rd petitioner. The e-way bill also shows that the goods were being consigned from Belgaum, Karnataka State to Toopran, Telangana State. In such circumstances, when there is no suppression of fact by the consignor or the buyer or the consignee, it is not clear as to how the 1st respondent could have arrived at a conclusion that there was deliberate intention to suppress the transactions.
The finding of the 1st respondent that the stand address of the 3rd petitioner was wrongly shown in e-way bill also does not scrutiny as the 1st respondent himself records in the impugned order, that the address of the 3rd petitioner is plot No.723 of Toopran, Telangana State.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the juri ictional facts required for seizure and confiscation are not available in the present case.
In the circumstances, the order of confiscation dated 27.09.2025 issued by the 1st respondent is set aside and the goods shall be released. Any penalty or fine recovered from petitioners on account of the transport of goods shall also be refunded.
Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
________________ T.C.D.SEKHAR, J CMK/SSA 19.01.2026
7
74 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION No.29645 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
2026
CMK/SSA
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.