Case Details: Ranjeet Kumar Poddar vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX Headquarter, Anti Evasion Unit, Siliguri (2026) 42 Centax 406 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Aniruddha Roy, J
- S/Shri Akshat Agarwal & Sandip Guha Roy, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Ratan Banik & Bishwa Raj Agarwal, Advs., for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner claimed ownership of a consignment of dried areca nuts transported from Bakshirhat to New Delhi. The consignment was intercepted during transit. The authority alleged defects in the invoices and e-way bills, disputing the ownership, quality, and quantity of the goods, and consequently computed penalties. The petitioner sought the release of the goods upon payment of a penalty, invoking the clause applicable when the owner comes forward and undertakes to file a statutory appeal. Conversely, the revenue contended that the non-owner clause applied. It insisted on the execution of a bond under Rule 140 of the CGST rules and opposed the release of the goods pending adjudication. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that section 129 of the CGST Act constitutes a complete code governing the detention and release of goods in transit. It was determined that release must follow upon payment of the prescribed statutory penalty. Since the petitioner asserted ownership and the revenue produced no contrary material, adjudication on ownership was deemed irrelevant at the stage of release. The applicable penalty, where the owner comes forward, was, therefore, payable. The Court further held that a bond under Rule 140 of the CGST Rules, being independent of the detention scheme, could not be insisted upon. Moreover, upon payment of the penalty under the owner clause, the goods were required to be released irrespective of any payment relating to the conveyance.
List of Cases Cited
-
- Assam Supari Traders v. Union of India — (2025) 34 Centax 138 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 17]
- JJ Traders v. Union of India — (2025) 37 Centax 317 (Cal.) = 2026 (105) G.S.T.L. 211 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 17]
- Riya Das v. Inspector of CGST & CX — (2026) 39 Centax 199 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 10]
- S N Trading Co. v. Union of India — (2025) 32 Centax 179 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 17]
- S.N. Trading Company v. Union of India — (2025) 32 Centax 359 (Cal.) = 2025 (100) G.S.T.L. 152 (Cal.) — Referred [Para 17]
- S.N. Trading Company v. Union of India — (2026) 42 Centax 55 (S.C.)— Referred [Para 17]
