Raja Supari Processing Unit Vs Union of India and Anr. (Calcutta High Court)
The petitioner claimed to have supplied and transported 17,710 kg of dried areca nuts to M/s. Bhairav International, New Delhi. During transit, the truck carrying the consignment was intercepted by the CGST Authority, and both the goods and conveyance were detained.
The revenue authority issued a show-cause notice dated 13.04.2026 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. The petitioner submitted its reply on 17.04.2026. Thereafter, the authority passed an order dated 20.04.2026 and issued a demand of Rs. 34,58,000 for 18,200 kg of nuts, along with Rs. 2,00,000 in respect of the conveyance. The writ petition records a demand of Rs. 3,45,800 under Section 129(1)(a) and Rs. 34,58,000 under Section 129(1)(b) of the 2017 Act.
The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court seeking release of the consignment under Section 129. Its counsel relied upon an earlier judgment of the same Court dated 14.05.2026 in Ranjeet Kumar Poddar v. Asstt. Commissioner of CGST & CX Headquarter, 116 GST 49/110 GSTL 28 (Calcutta)/WPA 622 of 2026, stating that release had been permitted in similar facts upon compliance with Section 129(1)(a). The revenue submitted that no appeal had been filed against that earlier judgment.
The High Court noted that the goods were perishable in nature. It further observed that the revenue had not produced any concrete or unimpeachable evidence, nor mentioned in its demand order dated 20.04.2026 any material which prima facie suggested that the petitioner was not the owner of the consignment.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the consignment be released in favour of the petitioner, subject to compliance with Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act. The release was directed to take place within three clear days from the date on which the petitioner deposited the amount required under Section 129(1)(a).
The Court further directed that if the petitioner failed to file the statutory appeal within three weeks from the date, as undertaken, or beyond the applicable limitation period, and the demand attained finality, the revenue authority would be free to proceed against the petitioner for recovery in accordance with law.
The Court also clarified that if the petitioner paid the penalty under Section 129(1)(a), the consignment would be released in its favour irrespective of payment relating to the conveyance by the conveyance owner.
The writ petition, WPA 647 of 2026, was accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
Cases Discussed
- Ranjeet Kumar Poddarv. Asstt. Commissioner of CGST & CX Headquarter (Calcutta High Court), 116 GST 49/110 GSTL 28 (Calcutta)/WPA 622 of 2026
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner as a consignor claims to have supplied and transported Dried Areca Nuts (hereinafter, the nuts) for a quantity of 17,710 kgs. pursuant to the order placed by one M/s. Bhairav International at New Delhi (hereinafter, the consignee).
2. During the transit the truck, through which the goods were transported, was intercepted by the CGST Authority and the consignment and the conveyance had been detained.
3. The revenue authority had issued a show-cause notice dated April 13, 2026, annexure P/7 at page 56 to the writ petition under Section 129(3) of 2017 Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017.
4. Petitioner has submitted its reply dated April 17, 2026, Annexure P/8 at page 62 to the writ petition.
5. The revenue authority then passed its order dated April 20, 2026 at page 78 to the writ petition and then issued the demand dated April 20, 2026, Annexure P/10 at page 79 to the writ petition for a total sum of Rs.34,58,000/- for 18,200 kgs of nuts and additionally on account of conveyance a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
6. Page 83 & 84 of the writ petition shows that, the demand in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act is for a sum of Rs.3,45,800/- and the demand in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of 2017 Act is for Rs.34,58,000/-.
7. At this juncture, claiming release of the consignment in terms of Section 129 of the 2017 Act the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
Submissions:
8. Mr. Pulkit Verma, learned Advocate (VC), with Ms. Pooja Sah, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that in the similar facts and situation and on identical point of law, this Court has already delivered a judgment on May 14, 2026, In the matter of : Ranjeet Kumar Poddarv. Asstt. Commissioner of CGST & CX Headquarter 116 GST 49/110 GSTL 28 (Calcutta)/WPA 622 of 2026 where the writ petitioner therein was permitted to have the consignment released in compliance of the provision laid down under Section 129 (1)(a) of 2017 Act and consequential directions have also been made.
9. Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, learned Advocate, with Mr. Bishwa Raj Agarwal, learned Advocate, appearing for the revenue submits that till date no appeal has been carried out from the said judgment dated May 14, 2026.
Decision:
10. Since the goods are perishable in nature and the revenue has not come up with any concrete or unimpeachable evidence neither has it mentioned in its order for demand dated April 20, 2026 which would suggest, prima facie, that the petitioner is not the owner of the consignment, necessary directions are passed hereinafter.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court holds that, subject to compliance of the provisions laid down under Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act, the consignment shall be released in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. The consignment shall be released positively within the next three clear days from the date of deposit of the amount by the petitioner in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act.
12. In the event, the petitioner fails to file statutory appeal within three weeks from date, as undertaken by him or beyond the period of limitation, if any, prescribed under the law, and the demand attains its finality, the revenue authority shall be free to proceed against the petitioner to realize the demand in accordance with law.
13. It is further clarified that in the event, the petitioner pays the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act, irrespective of payment on account of the conveyance by the conveyance owner, the consignment shall be released in favour of the petitioner.
14. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA 647 of 2026 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
15. Parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
