M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - Iii

Held

The Court, having considered the submissions, particularly that the goods and vehicle were released pursuant to the interim order dated June 24, 2026, was not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. Instead, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all available legal grounds, and the 1st respondent was directed to consider these grounds in accordance with the law and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of being heard. This exercise was to be completed within six weeks from the receipt of the order. The Court did not decide on the validity of the MOV-06 or MOV-10 notices on their merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. V J Petro Products, a registered GST dealer, purchased 20,000 liters of mixed hydrocarbon oil from M/s. Divya Industries on May 14, 2026, accompanied by an e-invoice and e-way bill. While transporting the goods from Tamil Nadu to its place of business on May 15, 2026, the vehicle was intercepted by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (1st respondent). Proceedings were initiated under Section 129 of the GST Act, and an order in Form GST MOV-06 was issued, citing the need for chemical testing to identify the commodity. The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition. An interim order on June 24, 2026, directed the release of the vehicle upon furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Subsequently, the respondents issued a notice in Form GST MOV-10 on July 14, 2026, proposing confiscation of the goods. The petitioner amended its writ prayer to challenge this notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should decide on the merits of the proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the GST Act, given the subsequent issuance of a confiscation notice under Form GST MOV-10? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the goods and vehicle were released based on the Court's interim order and that the subsequent notice for confiscation should be considered. The petitioner sought to amend its prayer to challenge the MOV-10 notice. Respondent's contention: The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes did not explicitly argue on the merits of the case. The Court's decision indicates a reluctance to delve into the merits due to the subsequent developments.