The Kerala High Court ruled that serving GST notices via WhatsApp is no longer valid, setting aside a vehicle confiscation order. The Court held that failure to follow legal notice procedures made the entire action void.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In an important ruling underscoring the importance of procedural safeguards, the Kerala High Court in Mathai M.V. vs The Senior Enforcement Officer & Anr. (WA No. 973/2025) quashed the confiscation of a vehicle under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, due to improper service of notice.
This decision reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding natural justice in GST enforcement actions.
Background of the Case
Aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 2082 of 2025 by the Kerala High Court on 11 April 2025, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
The petitioner, owner of truck KL-31 J-5759, stated that on 23 November 2024, the vehicle transported bilge water from INS Vikramaditya at Cochin Wharf. Two days later, the authorities shifted the truck to a parking yard. On 10 January 2025, the petitioner received a detention order indicating that a notice under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017, had been issued to the consignor, Petro Chemicals, for suspected tax evasion.
Challenging the detention and confiscation orders, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 2082 of 2025 on 17 January 2025, claiming he had no role in the alleged tax violation and was merely providing transportation services. He also maintained that no notice or order was served upon him.
In response, the first respondent alleged that the petitioner misrepresented facts and that the confiscation order dated 21 December 2024 had been properly served. It was also submitted that the truck driver lacked proper documentation and that the petitioner had been contacted several times via WhatsApp.
Observation and Judgment of the Court
The Kerala High Court, in its observations, emphasized the mandatory procedural safeguards under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. It noted that Section 130(4) of the Act explicitly requires authorities to provide an opportunity for a hearing before issuing any confiscation order.
Furthermore, it pointed out that
“Section 169 of the Act lays down the permitted modes for serving notices, and notably, service via WhatsApp does not qualify as a valid method under the current legal framework post the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The Court observed that in the present case, notice was only served to the driver and the consignee company, Petroliv Petroleums, while the vehicle owner, the petitioner, was never properly served, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Court relied on the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Lakshay Logistics v. State of Gujarat, which held that any action taken under Section 130 without valid notice to the owner is without jurisdiction.
Based on these findings, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji quashed both the confiscation order dated 21 December 2024 and the judgment dated 11 April 2025 of the single bench.
The matter was remanded to the competent authority for a fresh decision, instructing that a proper notice be served and an opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioner. The Court made it clear that it was not examining the merits of the alleged tax evasion.
This ruling is important as it reinforces the protection of taxpayer rights against arbitrary administrative action. It underlines the critical importance of procedural compliance by tax authorities and affirms that even in cases of alleged tax evasion, the fundamental right to be heard, as encapsulated in the principle of audi alteram partem, cannot be bypassed.
Case Title: Mathai M.V. vs The Senior Enforcement Officer & Anr.
WA No. 973/2025
READ JUDGMENT HERE
