Facts of the Case

The petitioners were, respectively, the consignor (Redon Lithium Industries LLP, Bengaluru), the buyer (M/s. ADMS Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Belgaum) and the consignee (M/s. K R Foods, Kukatpally, Hyderabad) in a sale of lithium batteries. While the goods were being transported from Karnataka to the consignee's place of business in Toopran, Telangana under a valid tax invoice and e-way bill dated 19.09.2025, the 1st respondent intercepted the vehicle on suspicion that the movement was irregular, since the e-way bill showed a consignee address different from the buyer's registered address. Statements were recorded in Form GST MOV-01, physical verification done in MOV-02, and a detention order issued in MOV-06 under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. A fine of Rs.5,93,500/- in lieu of confiscation was fixed and a confiscation notice issued in MOV-10. Despite the petitioners' reply explaining that the consignee was to install the batteries into electric vehicles supplied by the buyer, the 1st respondent proceeded to confiscate the goods and vehicle by order dated 27.09.2025 in Form GST MOV-11 under Section 130 of the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, prompting the present writ petition.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the jurisdictional facts required for invoking confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act were established on record.
  2. Whether the discrepancy in the consignee's address relied upon by the department actually existed once the invoice, e-way bill and the department's own findings were read together.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The invoice and e-way bill, generated contemporaneously and produced at the time of interception, fully disclosed the consignor, buyer and consignee, leaving no suppression of fact.
  • The batteries were being moved to the consignee's own additional place of business in Telangana for onward installation in electric vehicles supplied by the buyer -- a legitimate commercial arrangement, not a device to evade tax.
  • The confiscation order under Section 130 was passed without the jurisdictional facts necessary for invoking Sections 129 and 130, and in violation of natural justice.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The goods were purchased by the 2nd petitioner but were being sent to an address different from its registered place of business, indicating deliberate suppression.
  • The petitioners produced no further documents when called upon to explain the discrepancy, justifying confiscation.

Court Order / Findings

  • The invoice and e-way bill produced at interception itself disclosed the consignor, buyer and consignee, and the movement was traceable from Belgaum to Toopran without any suppression.
  • The 1st respondent's own order recorded that the address relied upon as 'discrepant' was in fact the registered additional place of business of the consignee -- contradicting the very basis of the confiscation order.
  • The jurisdictional facts required for invoking seizure and confiscation under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act were not made out, and the impugned order dated 27.09.2025 was accordingly set aside.
  • The goods and conveyance were directed to be released, and any penalty or fine already recovered from the petitioners was directed to be refunded.

Important Clarification

  • Confiscation under Section 130 cannot be sustained merely because a consignee's delivery address differs from a buyer's registered address, where the invoice and e-way bill together disclose the full transaction chain and the consignee's own place of business matches the delivery point.
  • An adjudicating authority cannot rely on an alleged discrepancy that its own order elsewhere contradicts; the finding of suppression must be internally consistent with the record.

Sections Involved

  • Section 129, CGST Act, 2017 -- detention and seizure of goods and conveyances in transit.
  • Section 130, CGST Act, 2017 -- confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty.
  • Forms GST MOV-01, MOV-02, MOV-06, MOV-10 and MOV-11 -- the procedural forms for interception, detention and confiscation.

Decision – In Favour of

Assessee. The confiscation order was set aside in full and the goods, conveyance and any recovered fine/penalty were directed to be released/refunded.

Case Details

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; Writ Petition No. 29645 of 2025; Coram: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar; Order dated 19.01.2026.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.