##PAGE1##

1

Form J(2)

JPD Sl.No. 7

Sudipta

In the High Court at Calcutta

In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Roy

WPA 647 OF 2026

M/s Raja Supari Processing Unit

Vs.

Union of India and Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Pulkit Verma, Adv. (VC)

Ms. Pooja Sah, Adv.

Mr. A. R. Chowdhury, Adv.

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

Mr. Bishwa Raj Agarwal, Adv.

Heard on : May 18, 2026

Judgment on : May 18, 2026

[In Court

Aniruddha Roy, J. :

Facts:

1. The petitioner as a consignor claims to have supplied and transported

Dried Areca Nuts (hereinafter, the nuts) for a quantity of 17,710 kgs.

WPA 647 of 2026

A.Roy, J.

2

pursuant to the order placed by one M/s. Bhairav International at New

Delhi (hereinafter, the consignee).

2. During the transit the truck, through which the goods were transported,

was intercepted by the CGST Authority and the consignment and the

conveyance had been detained.

3. The revenue authority had issued a show-cause notice dated April 13,

2026, annexure P/7 at page 56 to the writ petition under Section

129(3) of 2017 Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017

4. Petitioner has submitted its reply dated April 17, 2026, Annexure P/8

at page 62 to the writ petition.

5. The revenue authority then passed its order dated April 20, 2026 at

page 78 to the writ petition and then issued the demand dated April 20,

2026, Annexure P/10 at page 79 to the writ petition for a total sum of

Rs.34,58,000/- for 18,200 kgs of nuts and additionally on account of

conveyance a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

6. Page 83 & 84 of the writ petition shows that, the demand in terms of

Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act is for a sum of Rs.3,45,800/- and the

demand in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of 2017 Act is for Rs.34,58,000/-

7. At this juncture, claiming release of the consignment in terms of Section

129 of the 2017 Act the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.

WPA 647 of 2026

A.Roy, J.

3

Submissions:

8. Mr. Pulkit Verma, learned Advocate (VC), with Ms. Pooja Sah, learned

Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that in the similar facts

and situation and on identical point of law, this Court has already

delivered a judgment on May 14, 2026, In the matter of : Ranjeet

Kumar Poddar Vs. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX

Headquarter, Anti Evasion Unit, Siliguri Commissionerate and Anr.

rendered in WPA 622 of 2026 where the writ petitioner therein was

permitted to have the consignment released in compliance of the

provision laid down under Section 129 (1)(a) of 2017 Act and

consequential directions have also been made.

9. Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, learned Advocate, with Mr. Bishwa Raj

Agarwal, learned Advocate, appearing for the revenue submits that till

date no appeal has been carried out from the said judgment dated May

14, 2026

Decision:

10. Since the goods are perishable in nature and the revenue has not come

up with any concrete or unimpeachable evidence neither has it

mentioned in its order for demand dated April 20, 2026 which would

suggest, prima facie, that the petitioner is not the owner of the

consignment, necessary directions are passed hereinafter.

WPA 647 of 2026

A.Roy, J.

4

11. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court holds that,

subject to compliance of the provisions laid down under Section

129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act, the consignment shall be released in favour

of the petitioner in accordance with law. The consignment shall be

released positively within the next three clear days from the date of

deposit of the amount by the petitioner in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of

the 2017 Act

12. In the event, the petitioner fails to file statutory appeal within three

weeks from date, as undertaken by him or beyond the period of

limitation, if any, prescribed under the law, and the demand attains its

finality, the revenue authority shall be free to proceed against the

petitioner to realize the demand in accordance with law.

13. It is further clarified that in the event, the petiti