Petitioners must utilize alternative remedies available under the law before seeking judicial intervention.

1. Citing extreme urgency, this matter was mentioned and the present writ petition has been filed by the power of attorney holder of Bijay Maurya, the sole proprietor of M/s Shree Balaji Enterprise. The instant writ petition as would appear from the very first paragraph has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), which is an appealable order. It was submitted that since perishable goods of the petitioner had been detained by the respondents, an immediate order for release was necessary. Having regard thereto, and noting that the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri is at present not sitting, this matter has been directed to be listed and has accordingly been taken up for hearing.

2. The petitioner claims to be dealing with Trading of Dried Arecanuts as well as Palm Kernels within India and the petitioner had entered into a contract with M/s Ganesh Trading Company situated at Delhi on FOB basis though in the writ petition it has been incorrectly recorded as M/s Balaji Trading Company. According to the petitioner despite the fact that the goods and the transport vehicle was accompanied by valid tax invoice, e-way bills and insurance documents, unfortunately, the same were intercepted and detained on 31st May, 2025 on the ground that 640 Kgs. of Dried Arecanuts was found in excess in respect to the weight mentioned in the invoices. Since then an order of detention was passed in form GST MOV 06 on 31st May, 2025. Later a notice was issued on 6th May, 2025 in form MOV 07 calling upon both the driver of the vehicle as well as the consignor and the consignee, inter alia, including transporter and the owner of the vehicle to show cause in writing with documentary evidence as to why penalty be not imposed. Insofar as the petitioner was concerned, since the petitioner was called upon to disclose the documentary evidence in support of its claim including the trade licence, bank details and bank statements for the last three years along with audited balance- sheet and the purchase invoices evidencing that the petitioner had purchased the product.

3. The aforesaid ultimately culminated in the order impugned which was passed on 13th June, 2025 in form MOV 09.

4. The petitioner did not challenge the above order by filing an appeal, instead the instant writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. Verma, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that ordinarily when the petitioner had come forward, the respondents ought to have considered the petitioner’s case and ought to have released the vehicle with the goods unconditionally, the same has not been done. According to him, since the petitioner is the deemed owner by reasons of the petitioner’s name being reflected as a consignee in the e-way bill, the petitioner is not required to prove the ownership of the goods in question. The aforesaid aspect was not considered by the proper officer. According to him, the proper officer has also re-determined tax liability of the petitioner contrary to the provisions contained in Explanation 2 of Rule 138(2) of the CGST/WBGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”). Having regard thereto, according to him, the aforesaid order cannot be sustained and the same should be set aside and the vehicle including the goods in question should be released.

6. Mr. Banik, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondents. He would submit that the petitioner admittedly in this case had an opportunity to seek release of the goods in accordance wit