GST Detention and Seizure – Key Procedures | Penalties | Release Options

Under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, “detention and seizure” refers to the temporary holding and potential confiscation of goods and vehicles when officials suspect non-compliance with GST rules. Common triggers include missing or invalid e-way bills, incorrect invoices, or indications of tax evasion. Section 129 of the GST Act outlines detention procedures, allowing for the release of goods after payment of applicable taxes and penalties or furnishing of security. Section 130 covers confiscation if authorities establish intentional tax evasion. The core aim is to ensure proper tax collection rather than penalizing minor errors; courts often stress that genuine mistakes or procedural lapses should not attract severe penalties.

Table of Contents

1. Huge Litigation on Issue Relating to Road Checks
2. Scope of Provisions
3. Opportunity of Being Heard
4. Release of Seized Goods

Check out Taxmann's GST E-Way Bill which is an authoritative guide to India's E-Way Bill system under GST. It encompasses the latest legislative changes (including Budget 2025), offering step-by-step E-Way Bill generation, validity, and compliance procedures illustrated with examples and flowcharts. Detention, seizure, and penalty provisions are explained with case laws, making this resource indispensable for minimizing disputes and ensuring legal clarity. With dedicated coverage of GST on goods transport services, FAQs, and a quick user manual, it is a must-have reference for tax professionals, businesses, legal practitioners, and students.

1. Huge Litigation on Issue Relating to Road Checks

There is huge litigation on issued relating to detention and seizure during road checks. There are over 500 such cases reported on taxmann.com cases. Actual cases of harassment must be at least 100 times these, as many persons somehow ‘manage’, or ‘pay’ and get away.

As stated earlier, road checks have become official highway robbery. Really, penalty should be imposed only when there is intention to avoid taxes and not for some procedural lapses or mistakes. Sometime, the mistakes are due to system failure, ignorance of ground level stall, illiteracy of drivers, problems on roads etc.

The cases have been arranged topic-wise to the extent practicable.

2. Scope of Provisions

Undervaluation of goods in invoice could not be a ground for detention of goods under section 129 – K.P. Sugandh Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh [2020] 122 taxmann.com 291/38 GSTL 317 (Chhattisgarh).

Detention and confiscation of goods of assessee under transport and also vehicle on grounds that Form GSTR-3B and Form GSTR-1 had not been filed was not justified – Relcon Foundations (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer [2019] 112 taxmann.com 255/31 GSTL 397 (Ker.)

Consignment of goods could not detained on ground that there was no mention of tax amounts separately in e-way bill as e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01, does not contain field wherein transporter was required to indicate tax amount payable in respect of goods transported [Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017] – M.S. Steel and Pipes v. Assistant State Tax Officer [2020] 119 taxmann.com 211/40 GSTL 175 (Ker.)

Consignment of goods meant for stock transfer could not be detained under section 129 on basis that e-way bill showed consignee as an unregistered person [Kerala State Goods And Services Tax Act, 2017] – ABCO Trades (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer [2020] 120 taxmann.com 180/42 GSTL 63 (Ker.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee on grounds that value quoted in invoice was low when compared to MRP of goods and HSN code of goods was wrongly entered, none of reasons justified detention of goods – Alfa Group v. Assistant State Tax Officer [2020] 113 taxmann.com 222/34 GSTL 142 (Kerala)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport and also vehicle at a place vazhayila on ground that e-Way Bill showed that it was to cover a transportation from Pazhoor-Peppathi to Vettoor road-Kaniyapuram, whereas Vazhayila was not on that route, detention of goods solely because driver had opted for a different route was not justified – Kannangayathu Metals v. Assistant State Tax Officer [2020] 113 taxmann.com 176/[2019] 31 GSTL 391 (Ker.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport from Gujarat to Kerala for reasons that there was a possibility of evasion of payment of IGST in Kerala and consignee of goods in Kerala was an unregistered dealer, said reasons were wholly irrelevant for purposes of detention of goods – Polycabindia Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2020] 113 taxmann.com 434/32 GSTL 542 (Ker.)

It is not permissible under Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act to detain a vehicle carrying goods or levy penalty on sole ground that vehicle was found at a wrong destination without anything more – Kamlesh Steels v. Deputy State Tax Officer [2021] 123 taxmann.com 375/45 GSTL 251/84 GST 93 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana)

In case of inter-State transactions, IGST Act to apply, and not State Act – R.R. Agro Industries v. State of U.P. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 210/66 GST 582 (All.)

Where goods of petitioner were detained under section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act while being transported from one State to another, impugned order of seizure was to be treated to be passed under IGST, read with section 129 of CGST Act rather than one passed under section U.P. GST Act and said order of seizure could not be held to be bad in law only for reason that wrong provision of Act was mentioned while passing same as power of seizure was clearly traceable under relevant Act as well – Seth Prasad Agro (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 281/66 GST 531 (All.)

Where Competent Authority intercepted a vehicle of petitioner transporting goods of a party and having found that Part-B of the e-way bill accompanied with goods was not complete detained vehicle and imposed a tax with 100 per cent penalty under section 129(3) upon petitioner, provisions under section 129(1)(b) would apply to transporter as person interested in goods and, therefore, notices of detention, tax and penalty did not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference – Daily Express v. Asstt. State Tax Officer [2019] 104 taxmann.com 47/72 GST 789 (Ker. – Case review: Daily Express v. Asstt. State Tax Officer [2018] 100 taxmann.com 270 (Ker.) affirmed.

For application of sections 129 and 130, it is immaterial that person proceeded against is not a registered person or a supplier or a taxable person or is not doing any business, if such person is a transporter of goods and goods are being transported and have been seized in transit and if charge is made out against transporter, revenue can proceed to seize such goods including conveyance – Ashok Kumar Bhatia v. State of U.P. [2019] 104 taxmann.com 453/73 GST 416 (All.)

Where goods of assessee under inter-State transportation were seized due to non-payment of U.P. GST and assessee filed writ petition contending that if sales were inter-State, U.P. GST Act would not apply and as such seizure was incorrect, writ petition was admitted [Matter pending] – Gupta Traders v. State of U.P. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 9/68 GST 660 (All.)

Police has power to investigate and effect seizure of goods for alleged forgery of documents in connection with commission of offences under different statutes, hence, seizure of trucks and areca nuts carried therein, by Police being part of initial investigation could not be said to be without Authority – Sangtei Enterprise v. State of Assam [2019] 111 taxmann.com 143 (Gau.)

Power to prescribe documents to accompany transportation of goods in course of inter-state trade is conferred on Central Government and not on State Government; since till date, Central Government had not notified same, detention for sole reason that transportation was not accompanied by prescribed documents under IGST Act/CGST Act/CGST Rules could not be sustained – Asics Trading Company v. Asstt. STO [2018] 91 taxmann.com 282 (Ker.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee and passed an order of confiscation of goods under section 130 without passing order levying tax under section 129, revenue was permitted to withdraw order of confiscation and further assessee was directed to appear before proper authority in regard to proceedings initiated under section 129 – R. R. Enterprises v. State of Punjab [2018] 99 taxmann.com 43 (Punj. & Har.)

Detention of goods merely for infraction of procedural Rules in transactions which do not amount to taxable supply, is without jurisdiction – Indus Towers Ltd. v. Asstt. STO [2018] 90 taxmann.com 417/66 GST 364 (Ker.)/Ravi Parameswaran Pillai v. Asstt. STO [2018] 91 taxmann.com 321/66 GST 571 (Ker.)

3. Opportunity of Being Heard

Where Competent Authority had seized vehicle and imposed penalty but grievance of assessee was that no show cause notice was issued to assessee, authority should pass a reasoned order for release of vehicle after affording due opportunity of hearing to assessee – Akbar Ali Transport Services v. State of U.P. [2024] 158 taxmann.com 382 (Allahabad)

Where assessee was not given any opportunity to show cause or to give reply to allegation on which its goods were seized, said seizure order was to be set aside – M.K. Enterprises v. State of U.P. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 320/66 GST 545 (All.)

Where Competent Authority had detained truck of assessee carrying goods and issued show cause notice under section 129(3), said authority was to be directed to consider assessee’s reply to show cause notice and pass a reasoned order – Liveguard Energy Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand [2019] 112 taxmann.com 176 (Uttarakhand)

Where several documents and circumstances which were neither referred to nor enumerated in show cause notice had been relied upon by revenue in impugned order of penalty, there being contravention of principles of natural justice, impugned order deserved to be set aside – Thoppil Agencies v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2020] 120 taxmann.com 18/41 GSTL 30 (Kar.)

Where Competent Authority detained a drilling machine of assessee under transport and passed order under section 129(3) without examining specific defence of assessee that machine was being transported for performance of job work and not for any other work, impugned order deserved to be quashed with direction to Competent Authority to examine defence of assessee and thereafter determine liability – Jaitron Communication (P.) Ltd. v. State of UP [2020] 122 taxmann.com 221 (All.)

Where Competent Authority had seized goods of petitioner under transport and passed an order under section 129(3) without taking into consideration his objections and had taken further proceedings under section 130, order passed under section 129(3) and further proceedings taken under section 130 were set aside and said authority was directed to pass fresh order after giving fair opportunity of hearing to petitioner – Sakeel v. STO [2018] 96 taxmann.com 627 (Raj.)

Where CTO detained conveyance along with goods and issued a show-cause notice under section 129(1)(b) calling upon transporter to file objections on premise that consignor was non-existent, later on he could not turn around and pass order without hearing transporter taking plea that transporter had no locus standi to file objection or raise dispute – Bright Road Logistics v. Commercial Tax Officer (enforcement – 09) [2020] 113 taxmann.com 204/32 GSTL 714 (Kar.)

Where Competent Authority had seized goods of assessee under transport as well as vehicle and issued notice under section 129(3), said authority was directed to pass speaking order after considering explanation filed by assessee – Raj Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement) [2019] 110 taxmann.com 96 (Kar.)

Where Competent Authority had seized goods of assessee under transport as well as vehicle and vide order passed under section 129(3) demanded tax and penalty, since Appellate Authority without hearing assessee dismissed appeal, order of Appellate Authority was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back to him for decision afresh – Swastik Traders v. State of U.P [2019] 108 taxmann.com 568/75 GST 93 (Mag.) (All.)

Where Competent Authority detained goods of assessee under transport and issued notice under section 129(3), said authority was directed to pass a speaking order and consider whether assessee could be treated as owner of detained goods – Raj Enterprises v. Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2019] 109 taxmann.com 475 (Kar.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport and also vehicle and issued a penalty notice under section 129(1)(b), to which assessee filed objections, and Competent Authority without considering objections filed by assessee passed order of confiscation of goods and conveyance, said order was set aside with a direction to Competent Authority to consider objections filed by assessee and pass appropriate orders after quantifying tax and penalty for purpose of section 129 – Shree Enterprises v. CTO [2019] 105 taxmann.com 154/73 GST 615 (Kar.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport as well as vehicle and straightway passed order of demand of tax and penalty, said Authority was to be directed to give a notice of hearing to assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order – Kalpana Stores v. State of Tripura [2020] 113 taxmann.com 616/78 GST 358 (Tripura)

4. Release of Seized Goods

Where auto trolley of the petitioner-distributor which was on its way for delivery of paper to buyer/consignee was detained by Deputy State Tax Officer on ground that validity of E-way bill had expired and petitioner had to pay an amount towards tax and penalty for release of goods, no presumption could be drawn that there was an intention to evade tax merely on account of non-extension of validity of E-way bill by petitioner and, therefore, order levying tax and penalty on petitioner was to be set aside and revenue was directed to refund amount collected from petitioner – Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax [2021] 127 taxmann.com 646 (Telangana HC).

Where Competent Authority detained exempted goods in course of inter-State transportation on ground that consignment was not covered by a valid delivery challan,  assessee, who was not owner of goods, would only have to pay lessor of an amount equal to 5 per cent of value of goods or Rs. 25,000 for obtaining a release of goods as specified under CGST Act and he could not be further mulcted with a similar amount under SGST Act – State of Kerala v. Mohammed Shereef [2021] 128 taxmann.com 57 (Kerala HC).

Where assessee, located in Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala), purchased a vehicle for personal use from Coimbatore after payment of IGST and a temporary registration was also taken apart from vehicle insurance and Competent Authority detained said vehicle while being transported from Coimbatore to Thiruvananthapuram for reason that it was transported without e-way bill, detention of vehicle was not justified – Assistant State Tax Officer (Intelligence), Alappuzha v. VST and Sons (P.) Ltd. [2021] 130 taxmann.com 486 (Kerala HC DB).

Where respondent intercepted petitioner’s vehicle (conveyance) and goods in transit on ground that there was an effort to evade payment of tax and issued show cause notice under section 129(3) calling upon petitioner why there should not be levy of tax and penalty and thereafter, respondent issued another notice under section 130 holding that previous show cause notice had abated, since there was information about intent to evade payment of tax, it was not open to proper officer to treat notice under section 129(3) as having abated and initiate proceedings under section 130 – M.S. Meghdoot Logistics v. Commercial Tax Officer [2021] 123 taxmann.com 23 (Karnataka)

Where there are contraventions of provisions of Act or Rules in conveyance of goods by transport, it is not sufficient for consignor to merely make an offer or undertake to remit tax; he has to actually remit payment – Ideal Movers (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax officer [2020] 113 taxmann.com 560/34 GSTL 193/81 GST 555 (Mad.)

Where Competent Authority vide order dated 10-11-2017 passed under section 129(1) had detained goods of assessee under transport from Nagpur to Ambedkar Nagar on ground that e-way bill was not accompanied with goods and further imposed penalty under section 129(3), both orders impugned could not be sustained – Mudassirunnisan v. Addl. Commissioner Grade II Appeal-I [2020] 113 taxmann.com 224/77 GST 540 (All.)

Where Competent Authority had seized goods of assessee under transport as well as vehicle and also imposed penalty, said authority was directed to release vehicle without demanding any security from assessee and against penalty order assessee had a statutory efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal – Air Transport Corpn. (Assam) (P.) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2018] 94 taxmann. com 470 (All.)

Where Adjudicating Authority had seized goods of assessee in transit and also vehicle and issued on it a notice demanding certain amount of tax, authority was directed to release goods and vehicle forthwith on payment of tax as indicated in show cause notice – Iqra Roadways (India) v. State of U.P. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 337/66 GST 547 (All.)

Where vehicles carrying fruit based beverages were intercepted on premise that aforementioned goods were exigible to 28 per cent GST rate but assessee had charged 12 per cent GST, it was a case of bona fide dispute as to whether goods would be exigible to 12 per cent or 28 per cent GST, and, thus, impugned order of detention and consequential notices were not sustainable – Hindustan Coca Cola (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer [2020] 122 taxmann.com 35/35 GSTL 545 (Ker.)

Where Competent Authority had seized goods of assessee under transport as well as vehicle on account of improper documents since seized goods were perishable commodities and assessee had deposited with department a sum towards tax and penalty, said authority was directed to release goods and vehicle on assessee executing a personal bond towards fine demanded by competent authority – M.K. Traders v. Union of India [2019] 108 taxmann.com 289/27 GSTL 644 (Guj.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport as well as vehicle and on ground that goods were undervalued and demanded a sum of Rs. 6.07 lakhs towards tax and penalty, said authority was directed to release goods and vehicle on assessee depositing Rs. 6.07 lakhs with department – Shahil Traders v. State of Gujarat [2019] 108 taxmann.com 264/75 GST 118 (Guj.)

Where Competent Authority had seized goods of assessee under transport as well as vehicle, Competent Authority was directed to release goods and vehicle on assessee depositing required tax – Jai Jawan Jai Kisan Suppliers v. State of Gujarat [2019] 108 taxmann.com 263 (Guj.)

Where High Court had passed a specific order directing assessee to deposit tax and penalty with department for release of detained goods and vehicle and assessee fully complied with such order, subsequently Competent Authority could not issue on assessee a notice under section 129(6) in FORM GST-MOV-10 – ABB India Ltd. v. Union of India [2020] 120 taxmann.com 302/35 GSTL 64/82 GST 534 (Guj.)

Where Competent Authority had detained conveyance of assessee carrying goods and passed order of confiscation and assessee had deposited amount of tax and penalty, Competent Authority was to be directed to release conveyance and goods forthwith – Sitaram Roadways (URP) v. State of Gujarat [2019] 112 taxmann.com 54 (Guj.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport as well as vehicle and thereafter passed an order for confiscation of goods and vehicle, since goods were duly accompanied by documents, there was no reason for Competent Authority to confiscate same – Insha Trading Company v. State of Gujarat [2019] 112 taxmann.com 175 (Guj.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport and assessee had remitted tax upon consignment, Competent Authority was to be directed to release goods on assessee furnishing bank guarantee towards penalty – Caterpillar India (P.) Ltd. v. State Tax Officer [2019] 112 taxmann.com 53/27 GSTL 4 (Mad.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee under transport under section 129 and determined a certain amount in this behalf, said authority was directed to release goods on assessee furnishing bank guarantee for amount determined – Ceat Ltd. v. Assistant State Tax Officer [2019] 108 taxmann.com 168/75 GST 15 (Ker.)

Where Competent Authority had detained goods of assessee as well as vehicle on plea that in original E-way Bill place of delivery was not correctly shown and in revised E-way bill value of goods was not correctly shown, said authority was directed to release goods on assessee executing a simple bond, if it was found that assessee had paid tax in accordance with value of goods shown in original E-way Bill – Rai Preximindia (P.) Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2019] 108 taxmann.com 165/23 GSTL 454 (Ker.)

Where goods has been seized by Proper Officer under section 129, they can be get released by assessee by resorting to any of three modes mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 129 – Reliance Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2018] 91 taxmann.com 376/66 GST 579 (All.)

Where Competent Authority by an order passed under section 129 had seized vehicle of assessee used for transportation of goods.