Advertisement
Advertisement
Skip to content
Follow Us on
Advertisement
TOP STORIES
Goods and Services Tax

GST Seizure of Perishable Goods: Calcutta HC Allows Non-Owner to Seek Release U/s. 129(1)(b)

Case Law Details

TaxGuru Citation
2026 taxguru.in 11414
Case Name
Ratul Talukdar Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)
Date of Judgement/Order
Only available for paid members
Advertisement

Ratul Talukdar Vs Union of India & Ors. (Calcutta High Court)

Summary: The Calcutta High Court considered an intra-court appeal arising from an order concerning goods detained and seized by the CGST authorities in connection with an inter-State supply. Mr. Bose, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed various irregularities. His principal contention was that, under Section 17 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act, 2017), in respect of inter-State supply of goods, the intermediary State, West Bengal, had no authority to detain and seize the goods under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He further contended that the learned Single Judge had erroneously directed the CGST authorities to auction the seized goods and had further directed the appellant, who claimed to be their owner, to participate in the auction.

The appellant also challenged the documents subsequently produced by the CGST authorities, which indicated that Ratul had stated during an investigation before the Anti-Evasion Section that he was not the consignor and was a painter by profession. Mr. Bose submitted that the letter relied upon by the CGST authorities had been obtained by coercion and that the tax invoice should be given prime consideration regarding deemed ownership of Ratul as proprietor of Talukdar Enterprise and the consignor. The respondents, represented by Mr. Banik, learned Advocate, submitted that the CGST authorities had the right to detain and seize the goods in terms of Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. It was also submitted that the authority had the right to investigate, that Ratul had made a statement before the authority two days after the seizure, on 4th July, 2025, and that he had never retracted the statement. The respondents further contended that the signature of Ratul on documents and the power of attorney relied upon in the writ petition did not tally with his signature on the letter written to the Superintendent, Headquarters, Anti-Evasion.

Paid content

Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.

Advertisement

Author Info

CA Sandeep Kanoi
Qualification: CA in Job / Business
Company: Taxguru Consultancy
Location: Mumbai, Maharashtra
Articles Published: 21,146

Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.