Riya Das Vs Inspector of CGST & CX (Calcutta High Court)
The appeal was filed by the writ petitioner against an order dated December 17, 2025 passed in WPA 2021 of 2025, which had refused interim relief for release of seized goods. The goods in question were areca nuts, which are perishable in nature. The consignment was being transported under an e-Bill when it was intercepted by the respondent authorities.
Upon interception, the appellant issued a letter dated August 28, 2025 claiming ownership of the seized goods. A notice under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued. The impugned notice dated August 29, 2025 assessed penalty on various parameters, including the liability of the owner of the goods, which was quantified at Rs.5,23,264/-.
Before the Court, the appellant submitted that she was the owner of the consignment and that the goods were perishable. She expressed readiness to furnish security equivalent to the quantified penalty amount without prejudice to her rights and contentions. It was also contended that there was no dispute regarding ownership and that relevant documents, including the e-Bill and a letter claiming ownership, were annexed to the writ petition.
