Voluntary Payment of Penalty for E-Way Bill Violation Validates

Voluntary Payment of Penalty for E-Way Bill Violation Validates Confiscation and Bars Subsequent Writ Challenge

Issue

Whether a writ petition challenging the detention and confiscation of goods can be maintained when the taxpayer suppressed the contemporaneous release of goods, non-disclosed a temporary registration, and voluntarily paid the tax and penalty without any initial objection.

Facts

A goods-laden vehicle was intercepted by State tax authorities and detained via Form GST MOV-06 because the goods were being transported without a valid e-way bill.
The authorities issued a temporary GST registration to the petitioner in Form GST REG-12.
A notice proposing the confiscation of goods and the conveyance along with a penalty was issued in Form GST MOV-10, which was followed by a final confiscation order in Form GST MOV-11.
The goods and the vehicle were subsequently released under Form GST MOV-05 after the petitioner paid the required tax and penalty.
The original MOV-05, MOV-10, and MOV-11 orders contained the petitioner’s signature and were duly uploaded on the GST portal.
A summary of the show-cause notice (Form GST DRC-01) and the final demand order (Form GST DRC-07) were subsequently issued.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of the entire detention, confiscation, and tax demand proceedings, claiming that Form GST MOV-11 was never supplied and that the portal upload was not traceable.

Decision

The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding it to be entirely devoid of merit.
It was established that the petitioner suppressed the existence of the release order (Form GST MOV-05), which existed contemporaneously and bore the petitioner’s own signature.
The petitioner’s pleas that Form GST MOV-11 was not supplied and that the portal upload was untraceable were rejected as lame excuses, especially since the revenue produced the originals of MOV-10 and MOV-11 bearing the petitioner’s signature.
The Court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose the temporary registration (Form GST REG-12) issued by the authorities.
Since the goods were undisputedly moving without an e-way bill and the penalty was paid voluntarily without any protest or objection at the time of release, the subsequent challenge to the confiscation proceedings was held to lack legal merit.

Key Takeaways

Suppression of Facts is Fatal: Fraud or deliberate suppression of material facts—such as hiding signed release orders or temporary registrations—disentitles a petitioner from receiving equitable relief under writ jurisdiction.

Voluntary Payment Precludes Challenge: Voluntarily paying tax and penalty to secure the release of detained goods without recording an official protest or objection severely weakens any subsequent legal challenge against the underlying confiscation proceedings.

E-Way Bill Compliance is Non-Negotiable: Transporting goods without a valid e-way bill is a fundamental statutory violation that legally empowers authorities to initiate transit detention and confiscation under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST/GGST Act.

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Vijay Laxmi Trading

State of Gujarat^*

A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, JJ.

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3897 of 2026

MARCH 24, 2026

Aman Rewaria and Kartik P. Kachhawah for the Petitioner. Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, AGP for the Respondent.

ORDER

A.S. Supehia, J.-The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 08.10.2025 issued in Form GST DRC-01, the order of detention dated 08.10.2025 issued in Form GST MOV-06, the confiscation order dated 08.10.2025 issued in Form GST MOV-11 and the consequent demand order issued in Form GST DRC-07.

2. At the outset, we had advised Learned advocate Mr.Aman Rewaria for learned advocate Mr.Kartik Kachhawah appearing for the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, however, he has invited order on merits.

3. It is submitted that the impugned action of the respondent is required to be quashed and set-aside as no order with regard to physical verification of the conveyance was passed and the computation of the penalty levied on the petitioner was also not provided by the concerned officer, on the interception of vehicle on 22.07.2025, hence such action is required to be quashed. It is submitted that all the orders were in consolidated manner placed on the portal and the petitioner could not identify the order passed under Form GST MOV-11, hence he could not produce it in the writ petition.

4. It is submitted that in fact the respondent competent authority passed the order in Form MOV-05 on 08.10.2025 whereas the goods and conveyance in fact were released on 26.07.2025 and he is not disputing the same. He has submitted that valid GST invoices were produced at the relevant time and the tax and penalty were already paid and the question of confiscation of goods does not arise. He has also submitted that the goods were not required to be confiscated by invoking Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’). In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court passed in SCA No.9250 of 2020 dated 11.12.2025 in the case of Panchhi Traders v. State of Gujarat[2026] 113 GST 318/104 GSTL 289 (Guj).

Thus, it is urged that the impugned orders may be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Tanushree Shrimal has submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy in filing Appeal under the provision of Section 107 of the Act. It is submitted the petitioner has not come out with clean hands and she has tendered the Release Order MOV-05 dated 26.07.2025 acknowledged by the petitioner in his own handwriting. It is submitted that the goods and conveyance were released on 26.07.2025 at 5.30 p.m., after the petitioner had paid the requisite amount of penalty. She has further submitted that no grievance of any kind was raised at the relevant time and so far as the order dated 08.10.2025 in Form MOV-05 is concerned, the same is electronically uploaded on the Portal and categorically mentioned that the goods and conveyance are released on 26.07.2025. She has further submitted that the Form MOV-11 dated 26.07.2025 was also phsycially tendered to the petitioner and the same also bears its signature. Finally it is submitted that in absence of e-way bill, the respondent authority has resorted to invoking the provisions of Section 130 of the Act.

6. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. We would like to mention that the petitioner has tried to carve out the case initially on the release order GST MOV-05, dated 08.10.2025, by mentioning that in fact the same does not mention any order of confiscation of goods and conveyance. We may mention, at this stage, that original release order MOV-05 is dated 26.07.2025 bearing the signature of the petitioner by which the goods and conveyance were released on the payment of tax and penalty by the petitioner. No grievance was made by the petitioner at that stage with regard to quantum of the penalty imposed. The order MOV-05 dated 26.07.2025 in fact was uploaded on portal on 08.10.2025 along with all other orders. Hence, the document at page-78 is the date bearing the uploading of the order MOV-05 dated 26.07.2025. Hence, on this count, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has suppressed the release order dated 26.07.2025 MOV-05.

6.1 During the course of dictation of this order, learned advocate Mr.Rewaria has tried to convey this Court that the order dated 26.07.2025 FORM GST-11 confiscating the goods and conveyance, was never supplied to the petitioner and in fact he was compelled to pay the penalty and, on such payment, the goods and conveyance were released. He has submitted that though the respondent authority had taken the signature of the petitioner, however a copy of the order was never served to him and it is not uploaded on the Portal. Thus, initially, a statement was made before us that the order dated 26.07.2025 FORM GST-11 was never supplied, and when learned AGP has produced, the stand is altered, and it is contended that since all the documents were uploaded on the portal, the petitioner was unable to find the same. This is a lame excuse tendered by learned advocate Mr.Rewaria in suppressing the order dated 26.07.2025. It is pertinent to note that the original copy on FORM GST-11 bears the signature of the petitioner.

6.2. Learned advocate Mr.Rewaria has attempted to mislead this Court by contenting that on 26.07.2025 at 5.30 p.m., when the goods and conveyance were released by the State Tax Officer vide release order MOV-05, though the same are release, a copy of the same was not provided to the petitioner. In fact it is noted by us that the petitioner has made false and incorrect statement in Para-6.8 of the Petition by saying that on 26.07.2025, when the goods and conveyance were physically released by the respondents, no written release order was issued contemporaneously at that time. During the course of hearing when this Court inquired from learned advocate Mr.Rewaria for the petitioner to point out the Form GST MOV-10 i.e. notice for confiscation of goods and conveyance and levy of penalty under Section 130 of the Act, learned advocate Mr.Rewaria for the petitioner has asserted that no such Form GST MOV-10 has been issued. At this stage, learned AGP Ms.Shrimal has in fact tendered the copy of Form GST MOV-10 dated 26.07.2025, also bears the signature of the petitioner. This is the second attempt which is made by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner to mislead this Court by making an false statement. We have also perused the original FORMS uploaded on the portal. All the documents bear signature of the petitioner.

6.3 It is also noticed by us that on 26.07.2025, the respondent authorities also issued the temporary GST Registration to the petitioner in Form GST Registration 12. This fact is also not pointed out to us.

7. We have also examined the nature of illegality committed by the petitioner since it is recorded in GST MOV-06 that the goods and conveyance were required to be detained since the goods were transported without any e-way bill. Thus, the petitioner was transporting the goods without any E-way Bill and he has voluntarily paid the amount of penalty without raising any objection and for the first time, the same has been raised before this Court, that too by suppressing the correct facts.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and is required to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. We are restraining ourself in imposing any cost in the writ petition for making misleading statement. A photocopy of MOV-10 along with the photo-copies of other documents, are ordered to be taken on record.