GST LogoGST Press

PVM Traders Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Date: September 25, 2025

Court: High Court
Bench: Andhra Pradesh
Type: Writ Petition
Judge(s)/Member(s): R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, TCD SEKHAR
Download

Subject Matter

Goods Detention: Department to Choose Between Section 129 and Section 130 Proceedings

Search, Seizure and Detention

Summary

The petitioner, a dealer in palm nuts, challenged the detention of goods and the subsequent initiation of confiscation proceedings. The vehicle, transporting palm nuts from Kerala to Nagpur, was intercepted, and the goods were detained on August 23, 2025, under Form MOV-06, on the ground that the commodity in the vehicle did not match the accompanying documents.

The Revenue (3rd respondent) initially issued notices under Section 129 (detention and penalty) but then proceeded to issue Form GST MOV-10 initiating Section 130 (confiscation) proceedings, without concluding the Section 129 process.

The petitioner argued that:

  1. The simultaneous initiation of Section 130 without concluding Section 129 is illegal (citing M/s. Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions Pvt. Ltd.).

  2. The goods (palm nuts) are perishable, necessitating urgent release.

  3. The Revenue should be directed to release the goods upon payment of a penalty fixed under Section 129.

The Revenue cited a different Division Bench judgment, M/s. Cluster Enterprises, to argue that Sections 129 and 130 can be initiated separately.

The High Court did not record a definitive finding on the illegality of simultaneous proceedings but directed the 3rd respondent to choose between the two provisions to maintain procedural clarity, citing Section 129(5), which states that penalty payment concludes proceedings.

  1. Direction to Choose Pathway: The 3rd respondent is directed to indicate to the petitioner within two days whether they intend to continue with proceedings under Section 129 or take up proceedings under Section 130 by explicitly closing the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.

  2. Petitioner's Representation: Upon receiving this intimation, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation/objection to the chosen course of action (which addresses the perishable nature of the goods and the confiscation notice).

  3. Timeline for Decision: The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's representation and take appropriate steps within three days of its receipt.


FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

The petitioner, who deals in Palm nuts was transporting them from Kerala to Nagapur, Maharashtra on 19.08.2025. The vehicle carrying these goods was intercepted by the 3rd respondent, on 20.08.2025, at Gooty. The 3rd respondent detained these goods by issuing MOV-01, dated 20.08.2025, to the driver of the lorry carrying these goods. Thereafter, notices MOV-2 and MOV-4 and MOV-6 were issued. Under the proceedings of MOV-6, dated 23.08.2025, the Palm nuts were detained on the ground that the commodity does not match with the documents accompanying the said goods. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Section 130 of the CGST Act, by way of issuance of Form GST MOV-10. Being aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of GST Act, as well as the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not releasing the goods on payment of penalty that is to be fixed under Section 129 of the CGST Act, the petitioner, has approached this Court, by way of this Writ Petition.

2. Sri Amal Darshan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 3rdrespondent having initiated action under Section 129 of the CGST Act could not have initiated action under Section 130 without completing the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. He relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka as well as the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions Pvt. Ltd., vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner, dated 03.08.2023, in W.P.No.15481 of 2023 and batch.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends on the basis of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Ors., dated 24.07.2024, in W.P.No.13375 and 14045 of 2025, that Section 129 and Section 130 are separate provisions and process could be initiated under both the provisions separately.

4. The present Writ Petition is filed against the show cause notice issued under Section 130, on the ground that the said show cause notice is without jurisdiction inasmuch as such a notice could not have been issued, under Section 130, without completing all the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act has not been served on the petitioner and has been served only on the driver of the vehicle due to which the petitioner does not have an opportunity of hearing.

6. As the petitioner is now in possession of the notice issued by the 3rd respondent, proposing confiscation of the goods, it would only be appropriate to permit the petitioner to file his objections to the said show cause notice at the earliest and to direct the 3rd respondent to take appropriate steps at the earliest. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the goods in question are perishable in nature and it would not be in the interests of either the petitioner or the revenue, for the 3rd respondent to retain the palm nuts. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out to Section 129(3) which would require the Detaining Officer to issue a notice specifying the penalty payable and permitting the person transporting the goods or the owner of the said goods, to pay the penalty.

7. As held by this Court, the Detaining Officer can either initiate action under Section 129 or under Section 130 of the CGST Act. Having initiated action under Section 129 of the CGST Act, the 3rd respondent would still have an option of either continuing the proceedings under Section 129 or to give up proceedings under Section 129 and proceed with proceedings under Section 130. In the present case, the 3rd respondent without completing the proceedings under Section 129 has now opted to initiate action under Section 130. In such circumstances, the 3rd respondent would have to take a decision as to whether he will continue under the provisions of Section 129 or take up proceedings under Section 130 by closing the proceedings under Section 129. This view is taken in the light of Section 129(5) of the CGST Act which states that payment of penalty would conclude the proceedings in respect of the goods which are being seized under Section 129.

9. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rdrespondent to indicate to the petitioner within two days, whether the 3rd respondent intends to continue with the proceedings under Section 129 or is proposing to take up proceedings under Section 130 by closing the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act.

10. Upon such intimation, it would be open to the petitioner to make his representation which shall be considered within three days of the representation being made to the 3rd There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.