[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Pacific Cyber Technology Private ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15064/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15064 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==================================================
PACIFIC CYBER TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAKASH SHAH SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR DHAVAL SHAH(2354) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS NIMISHA PAREKH ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 05/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Shah with learned
advocate Mr. Dhaval Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms. Nimisha Parekh for the respondents
2. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Ms. Nimisha Parekh waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the
respondents. Since a short issue is involved in the present writ petition,
the same is taken up for final hearing today itself.
3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the legality of the impugned detention order
dated 04.06.2025 issued in Form MOV-06 as well as the impugned demand
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15064/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
order dated 14.06.2025 in Form MOV-09 read with order dated
15.06.2026 in Form DRC-07 passed by the respondent no. 3.
4. At the outset learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Shah appearing
with learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Shah for the petitioner has submitted
that the impugned order dated 14.06.20205 may be quashed and set aside
and the matter may be remanded to the respondent no. 3, since
respondent no. 3 has not considered the explanation tendered by the
petitioner in his reply dated 06.06.2025. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.
Prakash Shah has submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by the decision of this Court as well as other High Courts as
mentioned in the reply. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Shah has
further submitted that the explanation tendered by the petitioner more
particularly, in paragraph 7 for the delay which has occurred on the
transporters end, which is not considered by the respondent authorities
and hence it is urged that the matter may be remanded after setting aside
the impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Nimisha
Parekh for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order may
not be quashed and set aside as the same is appropriately passed since the
petitioner had sufficient time either to generate a new E-way Bill or to
extend the time however, he did not do so and hence there is a violation of
provision of Rule 138 of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Thus, it is
urged that the writ petition may not be entertained.
6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 14.06.2025 passed by the
respondent no. 3 in Form GST MOV-09 it is noticed by us that the
respondent no. 3 has not considered the explanation tendered by the
petitioner in the reply dated 06.06.2025 more particularly the reasons
assigned by the petitioner about the delayed movement of the goods in
paragraph 7. We have noticed that in paragraph 7 the petitioner has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15064/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
specifically contended that the E-way Bills were duly generated on
31.05.2025 approximately at 06:00 pm and the vehicle was scheduled to
depart on Sunday, 1st June, 2025. However, upon inquiring with the
transporter regarding the delayed movement, it was informed to the
petitioner that due to technical fault, the vehicle remained in a non-
motorable condition throughout 1st June, 2025 i.e. on Sunday and
consequently the movement of the vehicle began only on morning of 2 nd
June, 2025.
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prakash Shah appearing for the
petitioner has, in support of the submissions advanced, placed reliance
upon various decisions of this Court as well as of other High Courts, which
have been referred to in the reply filed on behalf of the petitioner.
However, it appears that the appellate authority has not even remotely
adverted to the explanation tendered by the petitioner and has proceeded
to pass the impugned order without considering the same.
8. In view of the aforesaid, and on this short ground alone, the
impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No. 3, who
shall pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order after duly considering the
explanation submitted by the petitioner in the reply dated 06.06.2025 and
after granting an opportunity of hearing, if so required. All contentions of
the respective parties are kept open. Respondent No. 3 shall pass the fresh
order within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this
order.
9. The present petition stands allowed. Rule made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni/53
