Date of Order: 21 August 2025
Parties: M/s MLV Constructions v. State of U.

Facts –

• The petitioners goods were seized on 21.06.2025; penalty proceedings followed with MOV-07 notice (27.06.2025) and MOV-09 order (03.07.2025).
• Department claimed SCN had been issued to the owner, but failed to produce proof; contradictory explanations were given (driver/transporter presumed to have informed).
• Petitioner argued mandatory notice under Section 129(3) was not served.

Issue –

• Whether penalty/seizure under Section 129 is valid without service of SCN to the owner of goods?

Order –

• The Court held that the Assistant Commissioner violated Section 129(3) of the CGST Act by not serving proper notice on the owner of goods and instead issuing penalty orders directly against the driver/transporter.
• It observed that misleading instructions were sent to the Court and the concerned officer lacked proper knowledge of the Act; the Commissioner was directed to send him for three months’ training before assigning such duties.
• The impugned orders in Form MOV-07 and MOV-09 (dated 27.06.2025 and 03.07.2025) were set aside for being passed in clear violation of statutory provisions.
• The State authorities were directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner (owner/consignor/consignee) within one week, ensure service via registered post, SMS, and email, and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner.