1 APHC010516912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 26670/2025 Between: 1. M/S PVM TRADERS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MOHANAN P V S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. PATTERIVALAPPIL, KANHIYUR, MOOKUTHALA, NANNAMUKKY, MOOKKUTHALA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, 679574 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IIST, ANANTHAPURAMU-LL CIRCLE. 3. DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ANATHAPURAMU CIRCLE-LL ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing notice of confiscation issued in MOV-10 dated 29/08/2025 and directing the 3rd Respondent to release the goods and consignment detained by them and pass any such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased pending disposal of the writ petition, to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to notice of confiscation issued in MOV-10 dated 29/08/2025 passed by respondent No.3, pending disposal of the above writ petition, as otherwise petitioner will be put to severe loss and hardship pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX The Court made the following order: The petitioner, who deals in Palm nuts was transporting them from Kerala to Nagapur, Maharashtra on 19.08.2025. The vehicle carrying these goods was intercepted by the 3rd respondent, on 20.08.2025, at Gooty. The 3rd respondent detained these goods by issuing MOV-01, dated 20.08.2025, to the driver of the lorry carrying these goods. Thereafter, notices MOV-2 and MOV-4 and MOV-6 were issued. Under the proceedings of MOV-6, dated 23.08.2025, the Palm nuts were detained on the ground that the commodity does not match with the documents accompanying the said goods. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated under Section 130 of the CGST Act, by way of issuance of Form GST MOV-10. Being aggrieved by the initiation of proceedings under Section 130 of GST Act, as well as the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not releasing the goods on payment of penalty that is to be fixed 3 under Section 129 of the CGST Act, the petitioner, has approached this Court, by way of this Writ Petition. 2. Sri Amal Darshan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent having initiated action under Section 129 of the CGST Act could not have initiated action under Section 130 without completing the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. He relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka as well as the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Arhaan Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Solutions Pvt. Ltd., vs The Deputy Assistant Commissioner, dated 03.08.2023, in W.P.No.15481 of 2023 and batch. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends on the basis of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Cluster Enterprises vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner and Ors., dated 24.07.2024, in W.P.No.13375 and 14045 of 2025, that Section 129 and Section 130 are separate provisions and process could be initiated under both the provisions separately. 4. The present Writ Petition is filed against the show cause notice issued under Section 130, on the ground that the said show cause notice is without jurisdiction inasmuch as such a notice could not have been issued, under Section 130, without completing all the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act has not been served on the 4 petitioner and has been served only on the driver of the vehicle due to which the petitioner does not have an opportunity of hearing. 6. As the petitioner is now in possession of the notice issued by the 3rd respondent, proposing confiscation of the goods, it would only be appropriate to permit the petitioner to file his objections to the said show cause notice at the earliest and to direct the 3rd respondent to take appropriate steps at the earliest. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the goods in question are perishable in nature and it would not be in the interests of either the petitioner or the revenue, for the 3rd respondent to retain the palm nuts. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out to Section 129(3) which would require the Detaining Officer to issue a notice specifying the penalty payable and permitting the person transporting the goods or the owner of the said goods, to pay the penalty. 8. As held by this Court, the Detaining Officer can either initiate action under Section 129 or under Section 130 of the CGST Act. Having initiated action under Section 129 of the CGST Act, the 3rd respondent would still have an option of either continuing the proceedings under Section 129 or to give up proceedings under Section 129 and proceed with proceedings under Section 130. In the present case, the 3rd respondent without completing the proceedings under Section 129 has now opted to initiate action under Section 130. In such circumstances, the 3rd respondent would have to take a decision as to whether he will continue under the provisions of Section 129 or take up proceedings under Section 130 by closing the proceedings under 5 Section 129. This view is taken in the light of Section 129(5) of the CGST Act which states that payment of penalty would conclude the proceedings in respect of the goods which are being seized under Section 129. 9. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to indicate to the petitioner within two days, whether the 3rd respondent intends to continue with the proceedings under Section 129 or is proposing to take up proceedings under Section 130 by closing the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act. 10. Upon such intimation, it would be open to the petitioner to make his representation which shall be considered within three days of the representation being made to the 3rd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J RJS 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 26670/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 24.09.2025 RJS