Blog Post
During transit checks the SGST Inspector, Gomati detained goods on 09.07.2024 and issued GST MOV-01 and MOV-02 to the Petitioner on the reason that E way bill expired & mismatch with vehicle and on 10.07.2024 issued GST MOV-04 stating "no discrepancies found", however, on same day, he proceeded to issue detention order in Form GST MOV-06 alleging E way bill expired and there is mismatch with the vehicle and subsequently on 11.07.2024 the Superintendent, SGST, Gomati issued show cause notice in Form GST MOV-07 under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 proposing to impose a penalty of Rs.4,96,850/- under Section 129(1).
The Petitioner submitted detailed reply on 18.07.2024 alleging non-uploading of EWB-03 Part A and requested to drop the allegation of Tax. Since there was no final order was passed in Form GST MOV-09 under Section 129(3), the Petitioner approached Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, who vide Order dated 24.07.2024 has disposed of the said Writ Petition with an observation that it would not interfere mid-proceedings as a hearing was fixed on 30.7.2024, but directed the respondents to conclude the proceedings strictly in accordance with law, after granting to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It also observed that in the meantime, if the petitioner furnishes security as required under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, the detained goods and conveyance may be released.
In the meantime, a letter dt.23.7.2024 was issued by SGST department admitting that copy of the EWB 03 Part A and B was not uploaded on the common portal owing to a technical glitch in the MS E Way bill portal for SSO integration phase.
However, to secure release of the goods and vehicle, the petitioner on 26.07.2024 paid the penalty of Rs.4,96,850/- vide Form DRC-03 instead of giving security for it as directed by the High Court in the order dt. 24.7.2024 in WP(C) No.495 of 2024 and requested to pass MOV-09 order within the time frame, so that he can challenge it in appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the goods and the vehicle were released on 26.7.2024.
When this case had come up on 03.11.2025, the Court asked the counsel of department to produce the copy of MOV-09, however, the counsel said that since the Petitioner paid the penalty voluntarily, the goods were released and no order under Section 129(3) in MOV-09 was passed.
The High Court shocked to hear the submission of the Counsel that no order was passed till date for more than 16 months and observed that such payment of penalty under economic duress cannot be treated by the respondents as a voluntary payment of penalty exonerating the respondents from passing an order as mandated by Section 129(3) justifying imposition of penalty on the Petitioner and hold that collection of such penalty is without authority of law and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and allowed the Writ Petition with direction to refund the entire amount of penalty to Petitioner within 2 months along with interest @9% per annum from the date of such payment till the date of refund and also asked the Superintendent of SGST to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Petitioner for not passing an order justifying the penalty under Section 129(3) under Tripura SGST Act, 2017 and if not complied then asked the department to initiate disciplinary action.
{The above summary is from Tripura High Court Order dated 05.11.2025 in WP(C) No.611 of 2025 in case of R.G.Group Vs Union of India} (This is for reference only, Original detailed order may pl be referred) touch / click to view
The Petitioner submitted detailed reply on 18.07.2024 alleging non-uploading of EWB-03 Part A and requested to drop the allegation of Tax. Since there was no final order was passed in Form GST MOV-09 under Section 129(3), the Petitioner approached Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, who vide Order dated 24.07.2024 has disposed of the said Writ Petition with an observation that it would not interfere mid-proceedings as a hearing was fixed on 30.7.2024, but directed the respondents to conclude the proceedings strictly in accordance with law, after granting to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It also observed that in the meantime, if the petitioner furnishes security as required under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, the detained goods and conveyance may be released.
In the meantime, a letter dt.23.7.2024 was issued by SGST department admitting that copy of the EWB 03 Part A and B was not uploaded on the common portal owing to a technical glitch in the MS E Way bill portal for SSO integration phase.
However, to secure release of the goods and vehicle, the petitioner on 26.07.2024 paid the penalty of Rs.4,96,850/- vide Form DRC-03 instead of giving security for it as directed by the High Court in the order dt. 24.7.2024 in WP(C) No.495 of 2024 and requested to pass MOV-09 order within the time frame, so that he can challenge it in appeal before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the goods and the vehicle were released on 26.7.2024.
When this case had come up on 03.11.2025, the Court asked the counsel of department to produce the copy of MOV-09, however, the counsel said that since the Petitioner paid the penalty voluntarily, the goods were released and no order under Section 129(3) in MOV-09 was passed.
The High Court shocked to hear the submission of the Counsel that no order was passed till date for more than 16 months and observed that such payment of penalty under economic duress cannot be treated by the respondents as a voluntary payment of penalty exonerating the respondents from passing an order as mandated by Section 129(3) justifying imposition of penalty on the Petitioner and hold that collection of such penalty is without authority of law and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and allowed the Writ Petition with direction to refund the entire amount of penalty to Petitioner within 2 months along with interest @9% per annum from the date of such payment till the date of refund and also asked the Superintendent of SGST to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Petitioner for not passing an order justifying the penalty under Section 129(3) under Tripura SGST Act, 2017 and if not complied then asked the department to initiate disciplinary action.
{The above summary is from Tripura High Court Order dated 05.11.2025 in WP(C) No.611 of 2025 in case of R.G.Group Vs Union of India} (This is for reference only, Original detailed order may pl be referred) touch / click to view
Read More Blogs Customs Notice Reply Customs Appeal Filing Home Page
GST Registration GST Return filing GST Notice Reply GST Appeal filing