Ms Wastepe INDIA Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax Act
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 26.03.2026, which ordered the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle and goods, could not be sustained. The Court found that Section 130 of the Central/State GST Act clearly requires that no confiscation shall be ordered without giving the person an opportunity of being heard. The revenue's concession that the order did not indicate any opportunity of personal hearing was granted, and their submission that only the reply was considered, meant that the statutory requirement was not met. The Court reasoned that mere consideration of a written reply does not equate to providing a personal hearing. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed. The matter was remitted back to Respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Facts
M/s Wastepe India Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26.03.2026, issued by Respondent No. 2, which confiscated the petitioner's vehicle and goods. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing. The revenue, represented by Ms. Puja Banga, conceded that the order did not indicate that a personal hearing was granted, although it stated that the petitioner's reply was considered. The Court noted that Section 130 of the GST Act mandates an opportunity of being heard before confiscation.
Key Issues
1. Whether the confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the Central/State GST Act is sustainable when no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, despite the statutory requirement? The petitioner argued that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard, as mandated by Section 130 of the Act. They contended that merely considering a written reply does not fulfill the requirement of a personal hearing. The revenue conceded that the impugned order did not explicitly state that a personal hearing was provided. However, they submitted that the petitioner's reply was duly considered. They did not present any arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the lack of a personal hearing.
Sections Cited
Section 130
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026:UHC:2396-DB 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 06TH APRIL, 2026 WRIT PETITION (M/B) No. 222 OF 2026 M/s Wastepe India Private Limited
…….Petitioner. Versus Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Act, Uttarakhand and another.
…Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner
: Sri Rohit Arora, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondents
: Ms. Puja Banga, learned Brief Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J
The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.03.2026 issued by respondent No. 2 under Section 130 of the Central / State GST Act confiscating the vehicle and the goods of the petitioner.
The specific case of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this regard, specific averment has been made in Paragraph-20 of the writ petition.
Ms. Puja Banga, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue, concedes that in the impugned order, there is no indication that any opp
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Uttarakhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.