Order Date – 24 June 2025

Parties: MATHAI M.V. Vs THE SENIOR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER and THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Mathai M.V., is the owner of a truck used to transport bilge water from INS Vikramaditya and the truck was detained by the GST Enforcement authorities on 25 November 2024, citing suspected tax evasion by the consignor, Petroliv Petroleums.
• He received a copy of the confiscation order dated 21 December 2024 only on 10 January 2025. He contended that he was unaware of any illegal activity and was not given an opportunity of being heard.

Issue –

• Whether the confiscation of the vehicle was legal and sustainable, in the absence of valid service of notice to the vehicle owner

Order –

• The Divisional Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the notice stated to have been sent to the Petitioner/owner through WhatsApp is not a mode of service contemplated under Section 169 of the Act of 2017. While such a practice was permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, it no longer constitutes a valid mode of issuing notice under the provisions of the Act of 2017, and there is no debate regarding the same. 
• The Petitioner’s conveyance was seized without there being any notice as contemplated under Section 130 of the Act of 2017. In such circumstances, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Lakshay Logistics would squarely apply to the case of the Petitioner. In this decision, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court set aside the order passed under Section 130 of the Act solely on the ground of non-service of notice. Therefore, the proceedings stated to have been concluded against the Petitioner under Section 130 of the Act of 2017 in respect of the vehicle are without jurisdiction for want of valid notice.
• Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.