In The High Court at Calcutta

In The Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Appellate Side

Ct.551 10.12.25

JPD

Item No.1 Sws.M

WPA 2144 of 2025

M/s. JJ Traders

Vs

Union of India & Ors.

T

Mr. P. Verma

Ms. Pooja Sah

.…for the petitioner

Mr. Ratan Banik

Mr. Bishwaraj Agarwal ….for the respondents

1. This writ petition lays challenge to an order

dated July 31, 2025, passed by the respondent No. 2, i.e. Assistant Commissioner (HAEU) Central GST & CX, Siliguri whereby penalties have been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 129 (1)(a) as well as Section 129(1)(b) of the WBGST Act of 2017/CGST Act of 2017

(hereafter “the said Act of 2017”).

2. The case run in the writ petition is that, the

petitioner is a dealer of areca nuts and has been conducting his business throughout India. On July 8, 2025, the petitioner sold 17,550 kgs. of areca nuts to one M/s. Surana Supri Centre situated in Nagpur,

Maharashtra. On July11, 2025, while the goods were in transit to Nagpur, Maharashtra, the respondent no.2 intercepted the vehicle containing the petitioner’s goods as Husludanga Toll Plaza, Jalpaiguri. Thereafter, an order for physical verification of the goods in Form GST MOV- 02 was issued and on July 14, 2025, a physical verification report in form GST MOV-04 was issued indicating therein that there was a difference of 1300 kgs. in the weight of the goods disclosed in the tax invoice and the actual weight of the goods found by the authorities at the time of physical verification.

3. On the same day i.e. July 14, 2025, summons under Section 70 of the said Act of 2017 was issued by the respondent no.2 to the driver of the vehicle carrying the consignment directing him to tender written statement and to produce documents pertaining to the consignment. On July 17, 2025, an order of detention of consignment under Section 129(1) of the said Act of 2017 was passed.

4. Subsequently, on July 24, 2025, a show cause notice in form GST MOV-07 was issued by the respondent no.2 to the petitioner thereby calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty to the tune of Rs.3, 57,200/- under Section 129(1)(a) as well as penalty of Rs.35,72,000/- under Section 129(1)(b) would not be imposed on the petitioner inter alia on the allegation that the existence of the petitioner’s supplier was dubious and that the actual weight of the consignment found while physical verification exceeded the weight mentioned in the tax invoice by 1300 kgs. The said notice granted only three days’ time to the petitioner to put in its reply and to avail of the opportunity of personal hearing.

5. It has been further contended that the petitioner filed its reply to the said notice to show cause through e-mail denying all the material allegations contained in the said show cause notice as regards the difference in weight and the statement made by the driver. It is asserted that along with the said reply, the petitioner also furnished all relevant details including copies of purchase invoices, E-way bill, Bank Statement, Tax Report and GST Registration Certificate in support of the petitioner’s contention.

6. It has also been asserted by the petitioner that on July 29, 2025, the petitioner was present in the office of the respondent no.2 along with his authorized representative to explain the factual matrix of the case and to avail of the opportunity of personal hearing but such personal hearing was not afforded and ultimately the order impugned was passed on July 31, 2025 rejecting the petitioner’s reply dated July 28, 2025 filed in response to the show cause notice. The petition also mentions that a representation dated September 16, 2025 was made by the petitioner before the respondent GST authorities urging them to release the goods upon receipt of penalty under section 129(1)(a) of the said Act of 2017 since the goods are perishable in nature.

7. Mr. Verma, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed in total derogation of the principles of natural just