Ranjeet Kumar Poddar Vs Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX Headquarter (Calcutta High Court)
The petitioner, acting as consignor, claimed to have supplied and transported 34,650 kilograms of dried areca nuts to a consignee in New Delhi. During transit, the truck carrying the goods was intercepted by the CGST authorities, and both the consignment and the conveyance were detained.
The revenue authorities issued a show-cause notice dated 30.03.2026 under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act. The petitioner submitted a reply on 02.04.2026. Thereafter, the authorities passed an order dated 06.04.2026 and issued a demand for Rs.51,87,380/- in relation to 35,530 kilograms of areca nuts, along with an additional amount of Rs.2,00,000/- concerning the conveyance.
The writ petition was filed seeking release of the consignment under Section 129 of the CGST Act. The petitioner relied on a circular dated 31.12.2018 issued by the Commissioner (GST), which clarified that where invoices or specified documents accompany the consignment, either the consignor or consignee should be treated as the owner of the goods.
The petitioner argued that the show-cause notice itself acknowledged the existence of tax invoices and e-way bills, although the authorities disputed their correctness and authenticity. It was submitted that the revenue could not deny ownership once the documents identified the petitioner as consignor and the purchaser as consignee. The petitioner further contended that under Section 129(1)(a), where the owner comes forward to pay the penalty, the goods are liable to be released upon payment of penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable. The petitioner expressed readiness to pay the amount of Rs.5,18,738/- determined under Section 129(1)(a) for release of the goods, emphasizing that the areca nuts were perishable in nature. The petitioner also undertook to file a statutory appeal against the demand order within three weeks.
