PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchThe Gujarat High Court dismissed Shreeji Steel’s challenge to GST confiscation proceedings, finding that the officer who physically verified the goods-carrying vehicle had the required authorisation under Rule 138B of the CGST Rules. The bench also found no reported ground to bypass the statutory appeal process under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The case-specific account below is based on LiveLawBiz’s report, updated 3 October 2026; the linked full-text order was not available for independent review.
What the Gujarat High Court decided
In Shreeji Steel v. State Tax Officer (1), Kutch Mobile Squad, R/Special Civil Application No. 10249 of 2026, reported as 2026 LLBiz HC (GUJ) 145, the reported bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the company’s writ petition. LiveLawBiz reports that the bench concluded that the physical verification was conducted by a proper officer authorised by the Commissioner and that the record did not establish a basis for writ intervention. The statutory appeal route remained open.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The bench was reported as stating: “Upon examination of the documents on record, we find that there is no violation of the said provisions, as the physical verification of the conveyance was carried out by the proper officer authorised by the Commissioner.”
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →What happened to the goods and vehicle
Shreeji Steel, described in the report as a trader in cast-iron waste and scrap, purchased goods from A.S. Construction in Gandhidham for direct delivery to A.K. Tools Industries. On 13 February 2025, near Samakhiyali, a State Tax Officer (1) with the Kachchh Mobile Squad inspected the vehicle carrying the goods.
According to LiveLawBiz, the authorities prepared Form GST MOV-04, the physical verification report, and issued Form GST MOV-06, the detention order. They later issued a Form GST MOV-10 show-cause notice proposing confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act. After an earlier remand, a fresh MOV-10 notice was issued on 15 January 2026. Shreeji Steel replied on 9 February, and the final MOV-11 order was passed on 2 March 2026.
The fresh MOV-10 notice reportedly proposed a penalty of ₹2,47,466, a fine of ₹13,74,812 in lieu of confiscation of the goods, and a proposed conveyance fine of ₹2,47,468. Those figures were proposals in the notice; they should not be read as the final liability fixed by the later MOV-11 order.
Rank #2
Why the officer’s authority mattered
Shreeji Steel argued that the physical verification breached Rule 138B. The High Court reportedly rejected that challenge because the inspecting officer had the required Commissioner authorisation. The ruling is therefore about the authorisation documented in this case, not a general permission for any GST officer to inspect any conveyance without the applicable authorisation or approval.
The GST Council-hosted NACIN electronic way-bill guide explains the general framework: the Commissioner or an empowered officer may authorise conveyance interception and e-way-bill verification; physical verification may be carried out by an authorised proper officer; and a specific conveyance may also be checked on specific information about tax evasion after the required approval. The guide is explanatory and predates this ruling. For a current compliance decision, check the current CGST Rules, notifications and forms rather than relying on the guide alone.
Why the court found no natural-justice breach
The company also said relied-upon documents had not been supplied and objected that the same proper officer issued the notice and adjudicated the matter. LiveLawBiz reports that the bench found no natural-justice violation on the case record:
- MOV-04 and MOV-06 were supplied to the person in charge of the conveyance.
- MOV-10 and material about the supplier’s registration cancellation were supplied to Shreeji Steel.
- The company had a personal-hearing opportunity on 22 January 2026. It did not attend, but it filed a written reply, which was considered.
The bench was reported as finding: “We do not find any breach of fundamental rights, violation of the principles of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction, or challenge to the vires of the statute.” This is the reported conclusion on these facts; it does not establish that a taxpayer can never challenge a notice or adjudication on document-disclosure or hearing grounds.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why the writ petition was dismissed
The Revenue pointed to the statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Relying on Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. Commercial Steel Ltd., the bench reportedly found none of the exceptional circumstances for writ intervention present and dismissed the petition while leaving the statutory appeal route open.
Recommended Free Tools
For a taxpayer considering a challenge, the practical distinction is important: the High Court did not report itself as deciding that the appeal would fail. It dismissed this writ petition in view of the circumstances before it and the available statutory remedy. A person affected by an adjudication order should review the applicable appeal provisions and deadlines promptly; the report does not state a deadline or advise on the merits of any potential appeal.
How to read this ruling in a future vehicle-check case
The ruling’s reported reasoning turns on its record rather than a blanket rule about GST inspections. When assessing a similar dispute, the relevant factual questions include:
- Was the officer’s authorisation or any required approval documented?
- Was the check based on specific information suggesting tax evasion, where that route was used?
- Were the verification and detention forms and other relied-upon material supplied?
- Was there an opportunity to respond or attend a hearing, and was the reply considered?
- Was a statutory appeal available against the resulting order?
These are useful points to examine in related cases, not a formal multi-part test stated by the reported judgment. The case-specific findings here are reported by LiveLawBiz; the report’s link to the full order was not available for independent review.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
