The Kerala High Court set aside the confiscation of a truck owned by Mathai M.V., citing procedural lapses by the SGST Department as the notice was served via Whatsapp which is not a valid mode of service.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Mr. Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji ruled that the confiscation of the truck was “without jurisdiction” due to failure in serving valid notice to the vehicle owner as mandated under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The bench emphasizes that while digital communication was allowed during the COVID-19 pandemic, such methods no longer constitute lawful service under current GST rules.
“There is a serious lacuna in the procedure adopted by the Respondents… WhatsApp is not a valid mode of service under Section 169 of the Act of 2017,” the Bench observed.
The court found that the department’s reliance on WhatsApp communication to inform the vehicle owner did not meet the legal standards set out in Section 169 of the CGST Act, which outlines valid modes of serving notice. These include direct delivery, registered post, email, or publication on the GST portal — but not messaging apps.
The appellant, Mathai M.V., had challenged the confiscation of his vehicle which was detained by the department after transporting bilge water from INS Vikramaditya on November 23, 2024. According to the GST Department, the truck was involved in transporting sullage without valid documents — an alleged attempt to evade taxes.
The petitioner denied any knowledge of wrongdoing and claimed he was merely the vehicle owner, not the consignor or driver at the time of the alleged infraction. He contended that no notice of confiscation proceedings was ever properly served on him.
The petitioner contended that no notice was issued to the Petitioner prior to the order passed under Section 130 of the SGST Act of 2017 confiscating the vehicle. Therefore, two questions arise. Firstly, whether a notice was served prior to the order under Section 130 of the Act of 2017, and secondly, whether a copy of the order passed under Section 130 was sent.
The court relied on the precedents from both the Gujarat and Madras High Courts, notably M/s Lakshay Logistics v. State of Gujarat and M/s Poomika Infra Developers v. State Tax Officer, which stress the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards, including issuance of notice to interested parties before passing confiscation orders under Section 130.
The court while allowing the appeal quashed both the Single Judge’s dismissal and the confiscation order dated December 21, 2024, and directed the GST authorities to issue a proper notice to Mathai M.V. in accordance with Section 130 and grant him an opportunity for a personal hearing. The proceedings shall be completed within three weeks from the date of his appearance (which must be within one week from the date of the judgment).
The court clarified it had not gone into the merits of the alleged tax evasion but focused solely on the procedural illegality.
Case Details
Case Title: Mathai M.V. Versus The Senior Enforcement Officer
Case No.: Wa No. 973 Of 2025
Date: 24 June 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Faizel K.
Counsel For Respondent: Senior Government Pleader Dr. Thushara James
Read More: Amit Shah to Lead Big GST Reform Talks: What Could Change?
- IPR Infringement | Supreme Court Recognizes Companies As “Victim” Under Criminal Laws - July 16, 2025
- CBIC Announces Transfer and Postings of Pr. CC, Pr. DG, CC - July 16, 2025
- ICSI Announces PMQ Examination for June 2025: Applications Open for Corporate Governance, Arbitration & Internal Audit Courses - July 16, 2025
