Assam Supari Traders Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court, in the case of Assam Supari Traders v. Union of India & Ors. (WPA 1691 of 2025), ruled that a writ petition is not maintainable when a detention order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act is passed based on disputed questions of fact. The petitioner, Assam Supari Traders, challenged the detention and penalty order imposed on its consignment of dried arecanuts, arguing that all required statutory documents, including the E-way bill and invoice, were present. The petitioner sought the immediate release of the goods under Section 129(1)(b) and relied on a GST circular stating that the named person in the invoice should be deemed the owner.
However, the Respondent authorities contested the writ’s maintainability by highlighting material discrepancies that created factual disputes unsuitable for High Court jurisdiction. Specifically, the proper officer’s order recorded incongruities between the driver’s statement and the petitioner’s claim regarding the time and location of loading, inconsistent quantity disclosure, and a lack of payment particulars for the goods. The officer stated he had a reasonable belief that the documents did not substantiate the legitimacy of the transit. The High Court acknowledged that while departmental circulars are binding, the presence of these factual disputes—which required evidence and verification—meant the matter should be addressed through the statutory appellate remedy provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The court distinguished this case from others where the only issue was the consignee’s non-existence, as here the driver’s statement directly undermined the legitimacy of the transport. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue an appeal or to seek immediate release of the goods under Section 129(1)(b).
