Gujarat High Court Rejects Challenge To State Tax Inspector's Authority To Intercept Vehicles Carrying Goods

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a taxpayer's challenge to a State Tax Inspector's authority to sign Form GST MOV-01, which is issued during the interception of vehicles carrying goods for inspection. The court held that a 2019 order had expressly authorised State Tax Inspectors to intercept conveyances and inspect documents, devices, and goods.

A bench of Justice Sangeeta K. Vishen and Justice P. M. Raval dismissed a petition filed by M/s Riddhi Siddhi Enterprises challenging the detention and confiscation proceedings initiated against it.

The dispute arose after Form GST MOV-01, dated July 8, 2026, reflected the name of a State Tax Officer but was signed by a State Tax Inspector. The petitioner argued that the Inspector had no authority to sign the form.

It contended that an earlier order issued in 2017 had delegated the relevant powers to State Tax Officers. The petitioner argued that the State Tax Officer could not further delegate those powers to an Inspector.

The State government opposed the argument, relying on an order dated June 15, 2019, issued by the Chief Commissioner of State Tax. The order amended an earlier office order dated June 23, 2017, and included State Tax Inspectors among the officers authorised to intercept conveyances and inspect documents, devices and goods.

The court accepted the State's submission, noting that the 2019 order had specifically designated State Tax Inspectors to exercise these powers under Section 68(3) of the Gujarat GST Act.

“Clearly, the Chief Commissioner of State Tax as per schedule indicated in column 4 designated the officers including the State Tax Inspector to exercise the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the State Act. In view of the above discussion, the stand taken by the petitioner that the form GST MOV- 01 is not signed by proper officer is not acceptable and is stated to be rejected. ,” the court observed.

It therefore rejected the petitioner's contention that Form GST MOV-01 had not been signed by an authorised officer.

The petitioner had also complained that reports prepared after physical verification and inspection had not been supplied to it. Additional Government Pleader Raj Tanna, on instructions, undertook to provide the report to the petitioner in the form envisaged under Section 169 of the Act.

The petitioner submitted that it would file its reply and produce the relevant documents after receiving the report.

The court further noted that Form GST MOV-06, the detention order dated July 11, 2026, and Form GST MOV-10, the confiscation notice dated July 17, 2026, had been issued and signed by the State Tax Officer.

It also observed that the petitioner could avail of the statutory remedies if an adverse order was passed in proceedings connected with these forms.

Dismissing the petition on both counts, the court declined to interfere with the proceedings.

For Petitioner: Samir Gupta and Nachiket D. Mehta, Advocates

For Respondents: Raj Tanna, Assistant Government Pleader