IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das)

MAT 2 of 2026

With

IA No.: CAN 1 of 2026

Riya Das

Vs.

Inspector of CGST & CX, Headquarter, Anti Evasion Unit, Siliguri

Commissionerate & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Mainak Bose, Ld. Sr. Advocate

Mr. Avrojyoti Das, Advocate

Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Advocate

Mr. Deokinandan Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Rituraj Chakraborty, Advocate

Mr. Rajdeep Das, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Ratan Banik, Advocate

Mr. Bishwaraj Agarwal, Advocate

Heard & Judgment on : January 9, 2026

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner and directed against order

dated December 17, 2025 passed in WPA 2021 of 2025.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant is the owner of the consignment. Consignment is perishable in nature. He refers to the show-cause notice. He submits that, the quantum of penalty that can be imposed in terms of the show-cause notice is Rs.5,23,264/-. Appellant is ready and willing to furnish such amount by way of a security to the authority. He also submits that, since the goods are perishable in nature, the same should be allowed to be released.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of the consignment. He refers to the various documents annexed to the writ petition. He draws the attention of the Court to the e-Bill. He also draws the attention of the Court to the letter dated August 28, 2025 issued by the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner claiming the ownership of the consignment. He submits that, the deposit of the fine may be allowed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent authorities submits that, the ownership of the goods is in dispute. He relies upon the circular of the Central Government, a judgment of a Single Bench rendered in WPA 2144 of 2025 dated December 10, 2025 (M/s. JJ Traders vs. Union of India & Ors.). He also relies upon an order dated November 19, 2025 passed in Special Leave Petition to Appeal (C) No.22173/2025 (S.N.

Trading Company & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.) in this regard.

5. The appeal is directed against an order refusing to pass interim order directing release of the goods to the appellant. Writ petition is still pending.

6. Goods concerned are areca nuts. Goods admittedly are perishable in nature. Goods were being conveyed by way of an e-Bill. Goods were intercepted by the respondent authorities.

7. Upon becoming aware of the interception of the goods by the respondents, appellant issued a letter dated August 28, 2025 claiming ownership of the seized goods.

8. Appellant suffered a notice under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

9. No material is placed before us to suggest that, claim of ownership of the appellant before us in respect of the consignment concerned is incorrect.

There are no other claimants in respect of the consignment concerned.

10. The notice under Section 129(3) of the Act of 2017 was impugned by way of a writ petition where as an interim measure appellant sought release of the seized goods.

11. Impugned notice dated August 29, 2025 assessed the penalty leviable on various parameters. One of the parameters is with regard to the liability of an owner of the goods. Such liability is quantified at Rs.5,23,264/-.

12. Appellant before us is claiming ownership of the consignment. Therefore, the liability of the appellant is limited to Rs.5,23,264/- as contained in the impugned notice dated August 29, 2025.

13. As noted above, there is no contrary claim of the ownership. No material is placed before us to suggest that the claim of the ownership of the appellant is false.

14. Relevant Circular on the issue of ownership and