Quashing of Detention Order (MOV-09) for Non-Consideration of Reply

Facts

The Detention: The Petitioner’s goods and conveyance were detained in transit, and an order was issued in Form GST MOV-06 (Detention Order), followed by a tax and penalty demand in Form GST MOV-09.
The Explanation: The Petitioner filed a detailed reply (specifically in Paragraph 7) explaining a technical delay:
- E-way bills were generated on time.
- The vehicle suffered a technical fault and could not depart on the scheduled day.
- The journey commenced the next morning once the fault was rectified.
- The delay was purely attributable to the transporter/mechanical issues, not an intent to evade tax.
The Flaw: The Respondent (Tax Officer) passed the final MOV-09 order without addressing or “adverting to” the specific explanations provided in the Petitioner’s reply.

Decision

The High Court ruled in favor of the Assessee, setting aside the penalty order and remanding the case:

Requirement of a Speaking Order: Every quasi-judicial order must be a “speaking order”—meaning it must show that the officer applied their mind to the facts and arguments presented by the taxpayer.
Violation of Natural Justice: Under Section 75, the officer is legally bound to consider the representation/reply filed by the noticee. Ignoring a core defense (like the technical breakdown of a vehicle) makes the order procedurally void.
Non-Consideration of Evidence: Since the specific reasons for the delay (the technical fault) were not even mentioned or dismissed with logic in the final order, the order was deemed to be passed in a “mechanical manner.”
Final Verdict: The MOV-09 order was quashed. The matter was remanded to the officer to pass a fresh, reasoned order after granting the Petitioner a personal hearing and properly considering the explanation for the delay.

Key Takeaways

“Technical Fault” is a Valid Defense: If your vehicle is delayed beyond the e-way bill validity due to a breakdown, document it immediately (e.g., repair bills, photos, or a letter from the mechanic).
The Power of Paragraph 7: This case proves that even if you provide a valid defense, if the officer ignores it in the final order, you have a strong ground for a Writ Petition based on “Non-application of mind.”
Section 129 vs. Section 75: While Section 129 deals with the detention of goods, the general principles of adjudication under Section 75 (reasoned orders, opportunity of hearing) still apply to the penalty proceedings.
Don’t Just Pay: If the detention is based on a minor clerical or technical timing issue and the officer is being unreasonable, a remand from the High Court often leads to a more balanced second hearing.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Pacific Cyber Technology (P.) Ltd.

State of Gujarat^*

A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15064 of 2025

FEBRUARY 5, 2026

Prakash Shah, Sr. Adv. and Dhaval Shah for the Petitioner. Ms Nimisha Parekh, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Supehia, J.- 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 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 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, 1^st 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 1^st 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.