Form No.J(2)

Calcutta High Court

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Appellate Jurisdiction

Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 1691 of 2025

M/s. Assam Supari Traders

-versus

Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pulhit Verma, Adv.

Ms. Pooja Saha, Adv. Mr. Gopal Roy, Adv.

For the Respondents : Mr. Dilip Kr. Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Bishwa Raj Agarwal, Adv.

Heard on : 19.08.2025 Judgment on : 19.08.2025

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J. (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging an

order under section 129 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). It is petitioner’s case that the petitioner is a dealer and is engaged in the business of trading dried arecanuts all over India. The petitioner also claims to be duly registered under the provisions of Central/Assam GST Act, 2017. It is also the petitioner’s case that the petitioner in usual course of business had sold 34510 Kg of Dried Areca Nuts for a transaction value of Rs.90,89,934/- to one M/s. Ansaar Traders

situated in Chikkamagaluru, Karnataka on FOB basis. The said goods were accompanied with valid documents and was booked with the transporter namely M/s. Ajay Goods Carriers for being transported to M/s. Ansaar Traders at Karnataka. According to the petitioner, the E-way bills and the consignment note and the invoices also accompanied the goods from its place of loading in Assam. Unfortunately, the respondent no.2 had intercepted the conveyance alongwith the goods at Maynaguri More, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal on the premise of genuineness of the said goods in transit and the tendered documents.

2. The physical verification in respect of the aforesaid goods was conducted at 14th July 2025 and summons under section 70 was also issued to the driver inter alia, directing him to tender statement and produce documents on the same date. Following the above, on 21st July 2025 a show cause notice was issued proposing penalty of Rs.8,65,708/- under section 129(1)(a) as well as penalty of Rs. 86,57,080/- under section 129(1)(b) alleging supplier’s existence as dubious. The petitioner claims to have responded to the show cause whereupon an order under section 129(3) of the said Act was passed. Challenging the aforesaid direction the instant writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Verma, learned advocate appearing in support of the writ petition has invited attention of this Court to the E-way bills and the circular dated 31st December 2018 pointing out as to the persons who can be considered as the owner of the goods for the purpose of section 129(1) of the said Act. He also placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court at Allahabad in the case of Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. reported in [2023] taxmann.com 231 (Allahabad) on the issue when the person named in the invoice or other accompanying documents can be treated/recognized as an owner of the goods for the purpose of section 129(1) of the said Act. He has also placed reliance on a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodra v. Dhiren Chemical Industries reported in (2002) 2 SCC 127 in support of his contention that a circular issued by an authority is binding on the said authority. In the facts noted hereinabove he would submit that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order passed by the appropriate authority under section 129(3) of the said Act and permit the petitioner to seek release of the vehicle and the goods as the goods at the time of interception was accompanied by valid documents.

4. Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appears on behalf of the CGST authorities. He would submit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal and ordinarily this Court ought not to entertain the writ petition. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the statements made by the driver of the vehicle which is reflected in the order passed under section 129(3) and would submit that t