Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Biju V.T., aged 51 years and a resident of Kottayam District, Kerala, was the owner of a goods carriage vehicle bearing registration No. KL55Z3669. The vehicle was intercepted and, by order No. GST/VCR/88/23-24 dated 2 November 2023 (Exhibit P-5), was confiscated by the Senior Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Squad No. 1, Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department, Ernakulam, the first respondent. The confiscation arose in connection with an e-way bill dated 17 October 2023 and a tax invoice issued by the second respondent, M/s. National Enterprises. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by way of WP(C) No. 37521 of 2023, praying for quashing of the confiscation order, interim custody of the vehicle, and dispensation of English translation of vernacular documents produced. The matter came up for admission on 16 November 2023 before Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, and was decided on the same day.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the confiscation order (Exhibit P-5) confiscating the petitioner's goods vehicle was liable to be quashed by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the petitioner could be granted interim or permanent custody of the confiscated vehicle pending resolution of the underlying tax dispute.
  3. Whether release of the confiscated vehicle could be effected on furnishing of bond and sureties against the demand of tax and penalty.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The confiscation order dated 2 November 2023 was arbitrary and liable to be quashed.
  • The vehicle's registration certificate, national permit, tax invoice and e-way bill were all valid and in order, and were produced as exhibits.
  • The petitioner was willing to furnish bond and sureties against the demand of tax, penalty, etc., to secure release of the vehicle.
  • Interim custody of the vehicle ought to be directed within a time frame fixed by the Court.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Senior Enforcement Officer, represented by the Government Pleader, did not press for a contest on merits once the petitioner's counsel indicated willingness to approach the department directly for release.
  • The department's position, as reflected in the confiscation order itself, was that release could follow only upon compliance with the statutory requirements for furnishing bond and sureties against the tax and penalty demand.

Court Order/Findings

  • After some arguments, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would approach the first respondent for release of the vehicle and was willing to furnish bond and sureties against the demand of tax and penalty.
  • Considering this statement, the Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the first respondent for release of the vehicle, directing the first respondent to take a decision on release upon furnishing of bond and sureties, in accordance with law.
  • The Court did not examine the legality of the confiscation order on merits, leaving that question open for the enforcement authority's decision-making process.

Important Clarification

Where a goods vehicle is confiscated by GST enforcement authorities, the High Court, without adjudicating the merits of the confiscation, may dispose of the writ petition by directing the department to consider release of the vehicle upon the owner furnishing bond and sureties against the demand of tax and penalty, in accordance with law.

Sections Involved

  • Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit.
  • Section 130 of the Central/Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty.
  • Rules relating to generation and validity of e-way bills under the CGST Rules, 2017.

Decision – In Favour of

This is a procedural disposal rather than a merits-based victory for either side. The petitioner secured liberty to pursue release of the confiscated vehicle on bond and sureties, but the Court did not rule on the legality of the confiscation itself, leaving the substantive dispute to be resolved by the enforcement authority. The outcome is best described as a facilitative order rather than a clean win for the assessee.

Related Case Laws

No directly on-point case notes are currently published on this site.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
  • Case No.: WP(C) NO. 37521 OF 2023
  • CNR: Not available
  • Coram: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
  • Decision Date: 16 November 2023
  • Disposal Nature: Writ disposed of; liberty to seek release of confiscated vehicle

Link to Download the Order

Download the full judgment (PDF)

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.