Writ against confiscation dismissed; Concurrent GST & Customs action permissible

Issue

Maintainability: Whether a Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge a confiscation order when the statutory appeal under Section 107 has already been dismissed and the appellate order remains unchallenged.
Double Jeopardy: Whether concurrent proceedings/actions by both CGST authorities and Customs authorities regarding the same goods constitute “double jeopardy” barring the demand.

Facts

Detention: The CGST authorities detained the petitioner’s container in April 2021. Subsequently, the Customs authorities took possession of the case file and the goods.
Adjudication & Appeal: An adjudication order was passed confirming the confiscation and raising a demand (under Section 130). The petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 107, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.
Finality: Crucially, the petitioner did not challenge this appellate order further before the Tribunal. The order attained finality.
Recovery: When recovery notices were issued based on the finalized order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking quashing, alleging “double jeopardy” because both GST and Customs agencies were involved.

Decision

Writ Not Maintainable: The High Court held that since the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal and the appeal was dismissed (which remained unchallenged), the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen a settled matter. The request to withdraw with liberty to challenge the appellate order was declined.
Concurrent Jurisdiction: The Court rejected the plea of double jeopardy. It noted that there is no legal bar preventing concurrent action by CGST and Customs authorities.
- Note: Section 131 of the CGST Act explicitly states that confiscation or penalty under the GST Act is “without prejudice” to punishments under other laws (like the Customs Act).
Ruling: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Key Takeaways

Section 131 (No Double Jeopardy): The GST Act operates independently of the Customs Act. You can face penalties/confiscation under both acts for the same transaction (e.g., smuggling import goods involves Customs violation + GST evasion). This does not constitute “Double Jeopardy” in the constitutional sense.

Challenge the Appellate Order: If you lose a Section 107 appeal, you must file an appeal before the GST Tribunal (or Writ if Tribunal is non-functional). Ignoring the appellate order and later filing a Writ when recovery starts is a failed strategy.

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Prabhjot Singh

Union of India

MRS. LISA GILL and YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, JJ.

CWP-29919-2025(O & M)

OCTOBER 8, 2025

Raju Arora, Adv. for the Petitioner. Sunish Bindlish, Viney Kumar and Abhav Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent.

ORDER

Mrs. Lisa Gill, J. – Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside notice dated 26.09.2024 issued to petitioner seeking recovery of government dues arising out of adjudication order dated 10.05.2022 (Form GST MOV-11). Petitioner also seeks setting aside subsequent notice dated 17.03.2025 again seeking recovery of Rs.2,21,49,685/- as confirmed vide order dated 10.05.2022 (Form GST MOV-11) and upheld by Joint Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 07.12.2023.

2. It is submitted that the petitioner was running his firm namely M/s P.S. Traders, Patiala, since 2021. It is submitted that on 10.04.2021, a container bearing No. TLXU-200598-3 carried by one truck bearing No.PB-03-AZ-0618 was confiscated by the Inspector, CGST Department. Form GST-MOV-09 dated 07.07.2021 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner raising a demand of Rs.2,21,49,685/- along with penalty of the same amount. Order dated 10.05.2022 Form GST MOV-11 was then passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to petitioner. Petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short ‘the CGST Act’).

3. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that after issuance of GST-MOV-09 dated 07.07.2021, communication dated 13.07.2021 was issued by Principal Secretary, Customs and Central Excise Department, directing CGST Department to hand over the case and confiscated goods to the Commissioner, Customs Department. It is further stated in the said communication that case property/detained goods quantified as per MOV-04 dated 11.04.2021 be handed over for further necessary action under the Customs Act, 1962. Customs Department had taken the case file and alleged confiscated goods from CGST Department in the month of June, 2021 and petitioner was nominated in a complaint titled “Customs through Superintendent versus M/s PM Traders and others”. Petitioner submitted his reply. However, he was arrested on 12.01.2022 and illegally detained till 15.03.2022 when he was granted default bail (Annexure P-6).

4. It is contended that CGST Department and Customs Department are proceeding simultaneously and at the same time against petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner which amounts to double jeopardy and that petitioner has been unnecessarily victimized in this matter. Therefore, writ petition be allowed as prayed for. Recovery order dated 17.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) as well as order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-2), adjudication order dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) and show cause notice dated 07.07.2021 (Anneuxre P-4) be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on advance notice, while opposing the writ petition points out that petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was dismissed on 07.12.2023, copy of which has not been attached and not even mentioned in the writ petition. It is further submitted that adjudicating authority in its order dated 10.05.2022 has specifically dealt with the issue and petitioner’s appeal against the same has also been dismissed. Moreover, even in his representation dated 02.09.2025, no such pleas as are being raised in the writ petition have been raised by the petitioner. Copy of order dated 07.12.2023 furnished in Court today by learned counsel for respondent, is taken on record subject to just exceptions. It is, thus, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed being devoid of any merit.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their able assistance.

7. Upon pointed query, learned counsel for petitioner concedes that appeal filed by petitioner under Section 107 of the CGST Act was indeed dismissed on 07.12.2023, and in respect to the mention in his representation dated 02.09.2025, regarding challenge to said order dated 07.12.2023, a criminal miscellaneous petition had been filed before this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn, the date and details thereof are however not available with him. It is further informed that said order dated 07.12.2023 has not been challenged thereafter till date. In all fairness, it is to be mentioned that learned counsel for petitioner at this stage has sought withdrawal of this writ petition with liberty to file afresh while appending order dated 07.12.2023 and laying a challenge thereto as well.

8. However in the given facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to accede to such request. This writ petition is clearly devoid of any merit and does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The ground as raised before us in respect to proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act not being valid as goods have already been seized by the Customs Department, has been dealt with specifically by the adjudicating authority and appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed way back on 07.12.2023. Admittedly no appeal was filed by petitioner to challenge this order till date, though curiously a criminal miscellaneous application, details of which are not forthcoming, was filed and withdrawn. Petitioner at this stage cannot be permitted to raise the ground as above and that too in the absence of any provision of law pointed out before us which prohibits such action. No other argument has been addressed.

9. Keeping in view facts and circumstances as above, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.