Web Analytics

The confiscated vehicle and the goods shall be released upon furnishing 25% cash of the amount mentioned in the Impugned Order and the outstanding balance shall be secured by furnishing a bank guarantee.

A company (petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the confiscation of their goods and vehicle by the GST department. The department had accused the company of fraudulent transactions and imposed a significant penalty.

Key Points:

  • The company argued the initial notices (MOV-02 and MOV-10) were without jurisdiction.
  • However, the department had already issued a final order (MOV-11) confiscating the goods and imposing a fine.
  • The company acknowledged the option to appeal the final order but sought a different remedy through the writ petition.
  • Citing a previous Supreme Court case, the company argued for a 25% cash deposit and bank guarantee for the remaining amount.

Court's Decision:

  • The court dismissed the writ petition as the company had an alternative remedy through the appeal process.
  • The court acknowledged the Supreme Court precedent allowing a 25% cash deposit with a bank guarantee in similar situations.
  • However, due to the company being from another state, the court deemed a bank guarantee insufficient and required a cash deposit for the remaining 75%.


  • The company can still appeal the final order (MOV-11) but will need to deposit 25% of the penalty upfront.
  • The remaining 75% must be secured by cash, not a bank guarantee, due to the company's location.

Topic-Kanchan Supplier Versus State of Punjab




whatsapp Facebook share link LinkedIn share link Twitter share link Email share link