BharatTaxGST

Namburi Subba Rao Gupta vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/32946/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01062945202502 December 2025Bench: R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,T.C.D.SEKHAR6 pages
For Petitioner: M RAVINDRAFor Respondent: GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010629452025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 32946/2025 Between: 1. NAMBURI SUBBA RAO GUPTA, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY SRI.NAMBURI SUBBA RAO, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 2. SANJAY PRASAD,, S/O. HARDEV PRASAD. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. LORRY DRIVER, LORRY NO.KA52C1178., HOWRAH ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT-II) DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. . 2. DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERST, INDRAKEELADRI CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA-1 ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the GST Form MOV-10 notice dt.31-10-2025 issued by the 2ND respondent Under Section 130 of the SGST Act/CGST Act, 2017 proposing confiscation of goods belonging to 2 petitioner along with the vehicle having registration No. KA52C1178 proposing to impose penalty of Rs.5,29,022/- fine Rs.2,64,522/- and CESS of Rs.20,48,104/- total Rs.28,41,638/- on the estimated value of Rs.9,44,685/- in lieu of confiscation of goods and vehicle, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the GST Act, 2017, contrary to the circular issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes Customs and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of the India and consequently set aside the same and pass 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 to stay all further proceedings and consequential actions pursuant to the Form GST Mov-10 dt.31-10-2025 issued U/s. 130 of the SGST/CGST Act, 2017 and release the goods and conveyance in favour of the petitioner on payment of the admitted penalty and CESS by the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M RAVINDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 3

The Court made the following ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)

The goods of the petitioner had been seized by the 2nd respondent on 31.10.2025. The 2nd respondent at the time of seizure of the goods has issued Form GST MOV-01, Form GST MOV-06 and Form GST MOV-10. Under these forms, the 2nd respondent had determined the fine and CESS payable in lieu of confiscation of goods and also called upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the said goods shall not be confiscated.

2.

The petitioner, in reply is said to have been stated that the petitioner was willing to pay fine in lieu of confiscation.

3.

The petitioner has now approached this Court, by way of the present writ petition contending that the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent is in violation of Section 129 as well as Section 130 of the GST Act. It is contended that the 2nd respondent could not have been initiated action under Section 130 of the GST Act without first following the procedure set out under Section 129 of the GST Act. It is further contended that Section 130(2) of the GST Act requires officer adjudging to give the owner of the goods and an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. It is contended that neither of these procedures have been followed.

4

4.

This Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises Vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Kadapa1, had held that it would be open to the officer, adjudging the issue, to either follow the procedure under Section 129 or to follow the procedure under Section 130 of the GST Act. It was further clarified that there was no necessity to initiate action under Section 129 of the GST Act and thereupon to initiate action under Section 130 of the GST Act.

5.

Section 130(2) of the Act reads as follows: “(2) Whenever confiscation of any goods or conveyance is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it shall give to the owner of the goods an option to pay, in lieu of confiscation, such fine as the said officer thinks fit: Provided that such fine leviable shall not exceed the market value of the goods confiscated, less the tax chargeable thereon; Provided further that the aggregate of such fine and penalty leviable shall not be less than the penalty equal to hundred percent of the tax payable on such goods;

Provided also that where any such conveyance is used for the carriage of the goods or passengers for hire, the owner of the conveyance shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of the confiscation of the conveyance, a fine equal to the tax payable on the goods being transported thereon.”

6.

Under this provision, the officer adjudging should come to a conclusion that the goods required to be confiscated. Apart from this, the officer adjudging would have also to fix the fine in terms of this provision. After arriving at a conclusion that the goods need to be confiscated and after fixing the quantum of fine, the officer adjudging should have given an option to the 1 2024 (88) G.S.T.L. 179 (A.P.)

5

owner of the goods to either pay the fine fixed by the officer adjudging, failing which, the goods can be confiscated.

7.

In the present case, the 2nd respondent has issued Form GST MOV-10 setting out the proposed fine and calling upon the petitioner to show the cause as to why the goods should not to be confiscated. It would be open to the petitioner to answer this show-cause notice both on the question of confiscation of the goods and on the question of the quantum of fine. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent would have to take a decision on all these issues and pass necessary orders.

8.

This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 03.12.2025 KA

6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

WRIT PETITION NO: 32946 of 2025

Date: 03.12.2025 KA

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.