The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Mathai M.V. v. The Senior Enforcement Officer [WA No. 973 of 2025 dated June 24, 2025] held that a confiscation order passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act without valid service of notice on the vehicle owner in the prescribed statutory modes is void and non-est in law.
Facts:
Mathai M.V. (“the Petitioner”), owner of a truck (bearing registration number KL-31 J-5759), filed a writ petition assailing the confiscation of his vehicle under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The vehicle had transported bilge water from INS Vikramaditya on November 23, 2024, and was later seized by the Respondent authorities. A confiscation order dated December 21, 2024, was purportedly passed against the consignor (Petro Chemicals), but the Petitioner alleged that no notice under Section 130 was ever served upon him as required under the Act.
The Respondents contended that communication with the Petitioner had taken place via WhatsApp, and that the confiscation was lawful. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated April 11, 2025, holding that the Petitioner had endorsed receipt of the confiscation order on January 10, 2025, and hence could not later plead non-service.
The present writ appeal was filed against the said dismissal, contending that service via WhatsApp is not a statutorily recognized mode under Section 169 and that the confiscation proceedings violated the mandate by the statutory provision in the CGST Act, 2017.
Issue:
Whether confiscation of the Petitioner’s vehicle under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, is valid in the light of the notice served through WhatsApp?
Held:
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in WA No. 973 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, under Section 130(4), no confiscation order can be passed without giving the owner of the conveyance an opportunity of being heard.
- Noted that, the Petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle and had consistently contended that no valid notice under Section 130 was served upon him.
- Held that, service of notice via WhatsApp is not a permissible mode under Section 169 of the CGST Act. Although services through WhatsApp were used during the COVID-19 pandemic, such informal methods no longer can be held as substitute to satisfy the mandatory service requirements.
- Observed that, the record does not establish that any notice under Section 130 was served on the Petitioner. The confiscation proceedings thus suffered from procedural illegality.
- Held that, relied upon, the decision of the Gujarat High Court in M/s Lakshay Logistics v. State of Gujarat and the ruling of the Madras High Court in M/s Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer, wherein confiscation under Section 130 was quashed solely for lack of proper service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
- Further held that, the confiscation of the Petitioner’s vehicle is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained and accordingly, the confiscation order dated December 21, 2024, was quashed and the Respondents were directed to issue a fresh notice under Section 130, giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
