##PAGE1##

27.04.2026

DL-08

Ct. No. 03

Srimanta

In the High Court at Calcutta

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

WPA/4166/2026

Shankar Rambhau Ninawe

-Vs.-

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Ms. Bulbuli Basu

…for the petitioner.

Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra,

Mr. Subhadip Biswas

…for the State.

1. Challenging the refusal on the part of the proper

officer to treat the petitioner as an owner of the

goods which had been detained under Section

129(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, the

instant writ petition has been filed. The

petitioner contends that the petitioner has

already paid the penalty in terms of Section

129(1)(a) of the said Act, notwithstanding the

above, the proper officer has refused release of

the vehicle and the goods. According to the

learned Advocate for the petitioner though the

petitioner has a remedy in the form of an appeal

from the order passed under Section 129(3) of

the said Act, on merits, since the authorities

2

continue to detain the vehicles and the goods

despite the petitioner making payment of

penalty, the petitioner has approached this

Court.

2. Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appears for the

State.

3. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing

for the respective parties and though diverse

arguments and counter-arguments have been

made and noting that the proper officer has

refused to treat the petitioner to be an owner of

the goods based on his findings as appearing at

page 194 of the said Act and since at this stage

there is little scope for this Court to enter into

factual issues, I am of the view that it shall be

prudent at this stage to permit the petitioner to

seek release of the goods and vehicles by

permitting the petitioner to secure the balance

amount of penalty as determined by the proper

officer to the extent payable under Section

129(1)(b), inasmuch as a part of the penalty in

terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the said Act has

already been paid.

4. Accordingly, in the event the petitioner secures

the balance amount of penalty by way of fixed

deposit receipts issued by any nationalized Bank

3

in the name of the petitioner and submits the

same with the respondents by undertaking to

keep the same renewed till disposal of the

appeal to be filed by the petitioner by endorsing

the same in favour of the respondents or in the

alternative to secure the balance amount by

way of Bank guarantee executed by any

nationalized Bank in favour of the respondents,

and to keep the same renewed from time to

time until disposal of the appeal, the proper

officer upon compliance of usual formalities and

upon obtaining necessary indemnity as may be

required, release the goods and vehicles in

favour of the petitioner. It is made clear if no

appeal is filed by the petitioner within further

period of three months from the date of order of

release, the proper officer shall be at liberty to

seek encashment of the fixed deposits and/or

encash the bank guarantee and realize the same

in protanto satisfaction of its claim against the

petitioner.

5. With the above observations, the writ petition is

disposed of.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)