Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Golden Traders And Others vs The on 16 February, 2026
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010026862026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3529]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.541, 1756, 3097, 3225, 3227, 3252, 3254, 3258 and
3354 of 2026
WRIT PETITION NO: 541/2026
Between:
Golden Traders and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax and ...RESPONDENT(S)
Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. PASUPULETI VENKATA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
WRIT PETITION NO: 1756/2026
Between:
M/s T.m. Enterprises ...PETITIONER
AND
The Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stii and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P N SUNIL KUMAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
2
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
WRIT PETITION NO: 3097/2026
Between:
Al Badar Spices ...PETITIONER
AND
The Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
2.
WRIT PETITION NO: 3225/2026
Between:
M/s R.g Traders and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Dy Assistant Commissioner Stiii and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M V J K KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
2.
WRIT PETITION NO: 3227/2026
Between:
M/s. Shiva Traders and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Dy Assistant Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
3
1. M V J K KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
WRIT PETITION NO: 3252/2026
Between:
Iqbal Deen and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Additional Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
WRIT PETITION NO: 3254/2026
Between:
B J Kumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The Additional Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
WRIT PETITION NO: 3258/2026
Between:
Mr. Suresh Kumar and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
4
The Additional Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
WRIT PETITION NO: 3354/2026
Between:
M/s. Sreekrishna Traders, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. AKULA VAMSI KRISHNA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX
5
The Court made the following Common Order:
Heard Sri P. Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri V. Raghuraman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri M. V. J. K. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Pasupuleti Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Sameer Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Akula Vamsi
Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Kalyan Chakravarthy,
learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes appearing for the
respondents.
2. The matters have been heard finally and reserved for judgment in the
main cases.
3. However, since all the issues relate to seizure/confiscation of goods,
which were in transit and interlocutory applications for release of such goods,
are pending, it would be necessary to pass orders in the present set of
interlocutory applications. The details of the interlocutory applications filed by
the petitioners are given herein below:
Interlocutory Applications filed for
Writ Petition No. Name of the Petitioner release of such goods or vehicles
541 of 2026 M/s. Golden Traders & Others I.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2026
1756 of 2026 M/s.T. M. Enterprises I.A.No.1 of 2026
3097 of 2026 M/s. AL Badar Spices I.A.No.1 of 2026
3225 of 2026 M/s. R. G. Traders & Others I.A.No.1 of 2026
3227 of 2026 M/s.Shiva Traders & Others. I.A.No.1 of 2026
3252 of 2026 Mr. Iqbal Deen & another I.A.No.1 of 2026
3254 of 2026 Mr. B. J. KUMAR & another I.A.No.1 of 2026
3258 of 2026 Mr. Suresh Kumar & another I.A.No.1 of 2026
3354 of 2026 M/s. Sreekrishna Traders I.A.No.2 of 2026
4. In all these cases, proceedings have been initiated under Section 129
or Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, on the ground
6
that, there has been gross under-valuation of goods in transit. There is no
dispute that the documents, specified under Section 68 of the Goods and
Services Act, 2017, were available in all the cases, except in W.P.No.3258 of
2026.
5. Though, a large number of issues have been raised and argued before
this Court, the question of whether the Authorities at a check post can go into
the question of valuation of goods, is the issue which needs to be considered,
in relation to any directions for release of goods.
6. This issue has been considered by various High Courts. The Hon’ble
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the case of Alfa Group Vs. The
Assistant State Tax Officer, State Goods and Service Tax Department &
Ors1. had held that the question of valuation, cannot be undertaken under
proceedings initiated under Section 129/under Section 130 of the G.S.T. Act.
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of K. P. Sugandh Ltd. & Ors. Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.2, had also taken the same view. The erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while considering the same provisions, under
the A.P.G.S.T. Act, in a judgment, dated 04.12.2014, in W.P.No.2952 of 2000,
had also taken the view that the question of valuation and tax payable on such
goods, would have to be referred to the Assessing Authority. This principle
was again reiterated by another Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in the case of Patel Angadia and Company Vs. Assistant
Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. 3. Apart from this, the Hon’ble High Court
1
2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 142
2
2020 (38) GSTL 317
3
1997 (3) ALD 682; (1997) 25 APSTJ 1
7
of Gujarat in the case of Panchi Traders Vs. State of Gujarat 4 and the
Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad in the case of Shamhu Saran Agarwal &
Company Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 5, had also held that, the
issues of valuation cannot be taken up by the Officials at check post under the
provisions of Section 129 or Section 130 of the G.S.T. Act.
7. Apart from the above views taken by the various High Courts, another
aspect that appears relevant is the question of whether the Authorities, of a
check post, of a State, through which the goods are passing, while being
transported from one State to another State, can confiscate or levy penalties
on goods, which are in transit. The provisions of Section 129 & Section 130 of
the G.S.T. Act are to ensure due compliance of the taxation laws. This is to
ensure that there is no loss of revenue to the State where the tax is payable.
In such a situation, the right or jurisdiction of the Tax Authorities of another
State to levy penalties or to confiscate goods, on the ground of evasion of tax
in another State does not appear to be a reasonable exercise of power.
8. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the goods,
which have been seized or confiscated under various impugned orders, would
require to be released.
9. As far as W.P.No.3258 of 2026, is concerned, the contention of the
respondents is that, the vehicle in question was inspected by the Officials and
subsequently, by the proper Officer, who had a complaint from the said
Officials, that the driver of the vehicle was not willing to reveal any details. The
4
2025 (12) TMI 941
5
2024 (84) GSTL 181 (All.)
8
respondents also contended that, on account of the refusal of the driver to
give any details, online verification was done, and it was found that, there
were no E-Way Bills issued for the consignment in question.
10. The contention is that the petitioner, having realized that his
consignment was under inspection, had got an E-Way Bill prepared, after the
first inspection has been completed and forwarded it to the driver of the
vehicle.
11. In such circumstances, this Court cannot accept the fact that there was
inspection much prior to the actual inspection, which was recorded in
Form – A.
12. Rule 138C of the C.G. & S.T. Rules, 2017, requires a summary report of
every inspection of the goods in transit to be recorded online by the proper
officer in Part A within 24 hours of inspection and a final report in Part B to be
recorded within three (03) days of such inspection.
13. In the present case, there were two inspections, according to the
respondents.
14. The first inspection has not been recorded and no report has been
placed online. A report has been prepared for the second inspection and
placed online. In this report, there is no mention about inspection of the
vehicle earlier.
15. Accordingly, all the above mentioned interlocutory applications in the
above table, are allowed and the goods shall be released to the petitioners.
9
16. Before parting with this Order, it is also necessary to record the fact that
the manner of valuation, conducted by the Officials has been extremely
one-sided and would not withstand scrutiny. The Authorities simply sent some
samples to an Organization in Karnataka for valuation. It appears that these
samples were collected in the absence of the petitioners and without their
participation of the collection in samples.
17. In such circumstances, it would be necessary to direct the respondents
to draw samples from all these consignments. In such a manner that the said
samples are divided into three (03) parts with one part being retained by the
respondents; one part being sent to the respective Jurisdictional Assessing
Officer and one part being given to the petitioners.
18. Needless to say, these samples will be kept in sealed containers, with
the seals being countersigned by both the Officers, who shall draw the
samples, and the petitioners or their representatives. It would be open to the
Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to take up further proceedings, on the basis of
such samples.
19. In the event of any vehicles having been seized or detained, the same
shall also be released.
_______________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
_______________
T.C.D.SEKHAR, J
KPV
