GST Goods Confiscation Matter Involves Disputed Facts: Gujarat HC Refuses to Entertain Writ Petition [Read Order]
The Gujarat High Court refuses to entertain a writ petition in the GST goods confiscation case citing disputed facts and the availability of an alternative remedy.
![GST Goods Confiscation Matter Involves Disputed Facts: Gujarat HC Refuses to Entertain Writ Petition [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/25/2054471-gst-goods-confiscation-disputed-facts-gujarat-hc-refuses-entertain-writ-petition-taxscan.webp "GST Goods Confiscation Matter Involves Disputed Facts: Gujarat HC Refuses to Entertain Writ Petition [Read Order]")
In a recent decision, the Gujarat High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The case involved the detention and confiscation of goods by the GST department, and the court observed that the matter raised serious factual disputes which could not be addressed through writ jurisdiction.Complete Blueprint for Preparing Project Reports,...
In a recent decision, the Gujarat High Court refused to entertain a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The case involved the detention and confiscation of goods by the GST department, and the court observed that the matter raised serious factual disputes which could not be addressed through writ jurisdiction.
Shree Devidayal Metals, a GST-registered firm, had approached the court after their goods were detained by the State Tax Officer at Amirgadh on 22.03.2025. The officer issued a series of notices and orders, including detention in Form GST MOV-6, a notice of confiscation in Form GST MOV-10, and a final confiscation order in Form GST MOV-11 dated 06.04.2025. The petitioner argued that valid e-way bills and invoices accompanied the goods and that physical verification had confirmed everything matched correctly.
The GST department’s counsel argued that the petitioner’s supplier, Dhatu Metallo Industries Pvt. Ltd., was not found at its registered business address. They also argued that Dhatu Metallo’s own supplier, Mewad Scrap, had its GST registration cancelled for issuing invoices without actual supply of goods. They further stated that the vehicle used for transport had been linked to multiple suspicious e-way bills generated even after it had been detained, suggesting that the transaction was part of a circular trading scheme to claim input tax credit fraudulently.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the order was passed without giving the petitioner a proper hearing and without considering the reply that had been submitted. It was argued that the transaction was genuine and that the authorities had drawn conclusions based on assumptions without proof of wrongdoing.
Read More: Dual GST Demands for Same Assessment Year Cannot be Sustained in Law: Madras HC [Read Order]
The division bench led by Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice P. M. Raval observed that the issues raised in the case involved questions of fact, such as whether the supplier existed and whether there was actual movement of goods which could not be resolved through a writ petition.
The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commercial Steel Ltd., which held that when an effective alternative remedy exists, and there is no breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction, a writ petition should not be entertained.
The court dismissed the petition and directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court made it clear that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the case and that the petitioner was free to pursue available legal remedies through the proper channels.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
