04.08.2025 Item No.

A 10 Saswata Rajesh Goyal Versus State Tax Officer, Bureau olf Investigation, South Bengal (HQ) & Ors. Mr. Akshat Agarwal Mr. Parikshit Karmakar …For the petitioner Mr. Amitabrata Roy, Ld. GP Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Mr. Debraj Sahu …For the State

1. Although, the petitioner has challenged the seizure order dated 21^st January, 2025, the petitioner in effect seeks to challenge the interception of goods and conveyance by issuing a notice in form GST MOV - 02 dated 17^th January 2025 without such notice adhering to the provisions of Rule 138C(2) of the WBGST / CGST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”) especially when by an order dated 16^th January 2025 passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), the proper officer had held that the contravention to Section 68 of the said Act and Rule 138 of the said Rules as envisaged in the show cause in form GST MOV – 07 dated 9^th January 2025 and the imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act was not justified.

2. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and noting that on previous occasion by an order dated 16^th January 2025 the proper officer by recording that the imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act was not justified since there was no contravention of Section 68 of the said Act and Rule 138 of the said Rules and also noting that the same consignment was once again intercepted by the authorities without any finding that such interception was warranted by a specific information relating to evasion of tax, prima facie appears to be in contravention to Section 138C(2) of the said Act.

3. Though, Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the State by referring to the show cause notice issued in form GST MOV – 07 dated 20^th January 2025 would submit that the subsequent interception was on the basis of subsequent information received from authenticate source, however, since the interception memo issued in Form GST MOV – 02 does not record the aforesaid satisfaction, I am of the view that the petitioner having made out a prima facie case, though the petitioner having obtained release of the goods by payment of the entire penalty amount, the instant writ petition should be heard.

4. Let affidavit in opposition be filed within a period of 2 weeks from date. Reply, if any, thereto be filed within a week thereafter.

5. List this matter under the heading “For orders”

in the combined monthly list of September

2025 (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)