The Kerala High Court on June 24 set aside the confiscation of a transport vehicle under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) after finding that notice to the owner had been served via WhatsApp, which is not a valid method of service under the law [Mathai MV vs. The Senior Enforcement Officer & Anr.]
A Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji held that WhatsApp communication, though previously permitted during the COVID-19 pandemic, no longer constitutes a valid notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a truck owner challenging a single-judge order that had upheld the seizure and confiscation of his vehicle by the State GST authorities on allegations of transporting sullage without valid documentation.
The truck had been detained on November 25, 2024, and a confiscation order was passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act on December 21, 2024.
The appellant argued that he had no knowledge of any tax violation by the consignor and that his vehicle had merely been hired to transport goods. He also submitted that no notice under Section 130 had been served on him prior to the confiscation order and he was not given any opportunity of being heard.
In response, the State authorities claimed that the driver had been contacted, his statement recorded, and that notices were repeatedly sent to the appellant through WhatsApp.
It was also submitted that the proceedings had concluded and that the confiscation could not be reopened.
The Court, however, found that there was no record of notice having been served on the owner through any of the methods prescribed in Section 169 of the CGST Act.
“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,” the bench held.
The Court examined the statutory scheme under Section 130 and noted that before confiscating a vehicle, the authorities must give the owner an opportunity to be heard. It held that a valid notice under Section 169 is a condition precedent to such a hearing and failure to issue the same renders the entire proceeding void.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the single-judge order dated April 11, 2025, as well as the confiscation order dated December 21, 2024.
The matter was remanded to the competent authority to be decided afresh after issuing notice to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of hearing within three weeks of the petitioner’s appearance.
The petitioner was represented by advocate Faizel K.
The respondents were represented by Senior Government Pleader Thushara James.
[Read Judgment]