Kerala High Court
Ajith Gopi vs State Of Kerala on 25 July, 2025
2025:KER:55005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
TH
FRIDAY, THE 25 DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 27049 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
AJITH GOPI,
AGED 26 YEARS
SON OF GOPI N.C.,
NELLIPPILLIL HOUSE,
KADAMATTOM P.O. KOLENCHERY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682311
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SHRI.T.T.BIJU
SMT.T.THASMI
SMT.M.J.ANOOPA
SMT.POOJA V.M.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 COMMISSIONER OF GST, KERALA,
KERALA GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
TAX TOWERS, KARAMANA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695002
W.P.(C) No.27049 of 2025
2
2025:KER:55005
3 ASSISTANT ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,
ASSISTANT STATE TAX OFFICER,
ENFORCEMENT SQUAD III, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX DEPARTMENT,
2ND FLOOR, SGST COMPLEX, THEVARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682015
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.27049 of 2025
3
2025:KER:55005
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a registered tax payer under the
provisions of the CGST/SGST Act, and this writ petition is
submitted by the petitioner being aggrieved by the proceedings
initiated under Section 129 of the CGST Act in connection with
the detention of certain goods transported by the petitioner.
2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are
as follows:
On 11.07.2025, a consignment of scrap materials was made in a
vehicle bearing registration No.KL 35A 8148 from the registered
place of the petitioner to the purchaser of the same. During the
transit, the said vehicle was intercepted at Angamaly by the
GST Authorities and Ext.P2 is the Form GST MOV-01, wherein
the particulars of goods under the movement and the
documents produced at the time of interception were
mentioned. It includes the invoice and the E-way Bill. Based on
Ext.P2, Ext.P2(a) Form GST MOV-02 order of Physical
verification/inspection dated 14.07.2025 was issued which was
2025:KER:55005
followed by Form GST MOV-06, the order of detention. Now
Ext.P3 notice has been issued, under Section 129(3) of GST Act,
requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings
under Section 129 shall not be initiated against the petitioner.
This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging
these proceedings, i.e based on Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b) and P3.
3. Heard, Dr.Pradeep K.P, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt.Reshmitha R Chandran, the learned Senior
Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that, the entire proceedings, initiated
against the petitioner, are not legally sustainable in view of the
fact that even going by the Ext.P2, the statement in Form GST
MOV-01, the consignment was accompanied with an invoice and
an E-way Bill, which are the only documents required, as
contemplated under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules. It is also
pointed out that in Ext.P2(b), the reason mentioned is that the
goods are not covered by valid documents, without specifying
2025:KER:55005
the nature of those documents as referred to in Ext.P2. The
same discrepancy is reiterated in Ext.P3 as well. It is pointed
out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the
proceedings are apparently initiated against the petitioner
merely because of the reason that the petitioner failed to
produce, at the time of interception, the document by which the
petitioner purchased the goods which was from an unregistered
dealer.
5. The specific contention of the petitioner is that, as far
as the consignment in question is concerned, the obligation as
contemplated under Rule 138A, is only to accompany the
invoice issued by the petitioner and also the E-way Bill
generated by the petitioner at the time of the commencement of
the consignment. As far as the goods in transit are concerned,
the same was intercepted at a time when the goods were in
movement from the registered place of the petitioner to the
place of the purchaser. Therefore, the documents as referred to
in Ext.P2 would amount to sufficient compliance of the statutory
2025:KER:55005
requirement contemplated under Rule 138A of CGST Rules and
hence no proceedings under Section 129 could have been
initiated against him.
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader
stoutly opposes the said contention, by placing reliance upon a
statement given by the Driver of the conveyance. According to
the Driver, at the time when the journey commenced, it was not
accompanied by E-way Bill but it was later made available to
him, by a third person at Aroor, whereas the interception was
made at Angamaly. Therefore, it was pointed out that, the
violation is evident and proceedings are justified.
7. After carefully going through the records and hearing
the learned counsels on either side, I find merits in the
submission put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is particularly because of, in all the documents which form
part of the proceedings, the only reason mentioned is that, the
transit was not supported with documents whereas, Ext.P2 itself
would indicate that, at the time of interception, it was
2025:KER:55005
accompanied by the invoice and the E-way bill. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
proceedings under Section 129 were sought to be initiated only
in view of the fact that the petitioner failed to produce the
invoice evidencing the purchase of the petitioner from the
unregistered dealer. However, as the vehicle was intercepted
during transit from the registered premises of the petitioner to
the purchaser of the article from the petitioner, the obligation of
the petitioner was to ensure that such transit was accompanied
by the documents as contemplated under Rule 138A, which are,
invoice issued by the petitioner as well as the E-way bill
generated pertaining to the said transportation. Admittedly, at
the time of interception, as evidenced by Ext.P2, both the said
documents were in existence. As far as the statement referred
to by the learned Government Pleader is concerned, the same is
a disputed fact. As in none of the notices issued, such an
allegation is raised, while considering the sustainability of the
notices impugned in this case is being considered, the same
2025:KER:55005
cannot have any significance. If such a discrepancy was there,
that should have been reflected in the notices impugned in this
writ petition. Since such a discrepancy was never highlighted in
any of the notices/orders/statements the same cannot be
pointed out by way of subsequent documents.
In such circumstances, I find that the proceedings initiated
as per the impugned notices are not legally sustainable and
therefore, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ
petition is disposed of, quashing Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b) and P3.
However, it is clarified that, this will not preclude the
respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings under the
Act, if there are any violations on the part of the respondents.
In the light of the order quashing the impugned notices as
above, the vehicle and goods of the petitioner shall be released
forthwith.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
rpk
2025:KER:55005
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27049/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE DATED 04-06-025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM GST MOV 1 DATED
11-07-2025 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
STATE TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALY
Exhibit P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE FORM GST MOV 2 DATED
14-07-2025 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
STATE TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALY
Exhibit P2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DETENTION ORDER IN
FORM GST MOV 06 DATED 14-07-202 ISSUED
BY THE ASSISTANT TAX OFFICER, ANGAMALY
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO
ENF/SQD3/EKM/VC/22/025-26 DATED 14-07-
2025 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Exhibit P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE NO F 34
DATED 11-07-2025
Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE E WAY BILL NO
561843404663 DATED 11-07-2025
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE INVOICE DATED
11-07-2025
Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE E WAY BILL NO
541843404456 DATED 11-07-2025
Exhibit P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE
DRIVER DATED 11-07-2025 BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE
APPLICANT DATED 12-07-2025 BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT
