Facts of the Case

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, Kanpur, sold 480 cartons of pan masala worth Rs. 36,24,000 to a Howrah buyer. The consignment, accompanied by tax invoice, e-way bill and consignment note, was intercepted on 02.01.2026 and Form MOV-02 was issued on 03.01.2026 detaining the vehicle and goods. Despite repeated requests by the petitioner for release and for representation through an advocate, the department insisted on her personal appearance, citing a report from the Uttar Pradesh GST authority alleging the firm was non-existent and created to avail unlawful input tax credit. No formal seizure order was passed even after more than three months from interception. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking release of the goods and vehicle.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the respondent authorities could insist on the petitioner's personal appearance despite her request to be represented through an advocate under Section 116 of the CGST Act.
  2. Whether the failure to pass a formal order of seizure even after three months of interception, and the consequent stalling of proceedings, was justified.
  3. Who should be treated as the 'owner of goods' for the purposes of Section 129(1) where invoices clearly show consignor and consignee.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner was ready and willing to pay the applicable penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act to secure release of the perishable goods.
  • Being a woman resident of Uttar Pradesh, she should be permitted to be represented before the authorities through her advocate rather than being compelled to appear in person.
  • The invoices clearly identified the petitioner's firm as consignor and the buyer as consignee, so ownership for Section 129 purposes should follow the invoice as per CBIC's own clarificatory circular.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Despite repeated requests, the petitioner failed to appear personally, so the matter could not be proceeded with, particularly once doubts arose about her firm's genuineness.
  • A letter from the consignee sought that the goods not be released without his consent, and he was willing to appear physically or by video conference.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found no justification for insisting on personal appearance when Section 116 of the CGST Act expressly permits appearance through an authorised representative including an advocate.
  • Relying on the CBIC Circular dated 31.12.2018, the Court held that where invoices accompany the goods, the consignor or consignee shown therein is to be treated as the owner for Section 129(1) purposes, and the authorities ought to have determined ownership accordingly instead of stalling the matter.
  • The Court found no justification for over three months' delay in passing a seizure order and directed a fresh, time-bound hearing with representation through the petitioner's chosen advocate, leaving the option to deposit the Section 129(1)(a) penalty and challenge any resulting order in appeal.

Important Clarification

  • A person under GST proceedings, including for detained goods, has a statutory right under Section 116 of the CGST Act to appear through an authorised representative, and this cannot be overridden by insisting on personal appearance.
  • Per CBIC's Circular dated 31.12.2018, where invoices or specified documents accompany a consignment, the consignor or consignee named therein is deemed the owner of the goods for Section 129 purposes.
  • Prolonged inaction beyond the statutory time-frame in passing a seizure/detention order under Section 129 is impermissible, more so for perishable goods.

Sections Involved

  • Section 129, CGST Act, 2017 – detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit.
  • Section 116, CGST Act, 2017 – right to appear through an authorised representative, including an advocate, before GST authorities.
  • Form GST MOV-02 – order for physical verification/inspection of the conveyance, goods and documents.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is disposed of with directions, in part in favour of the petitioner — no outright release was ordered, but the Court secured her right to be represented by an advocate and set a strict timeline for the department to conclude the Section 129 proceedings.

Case Details

Court: High Court at Calcutta — Case No.: WPA 1397 of 2026 — Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kausik Chanda — Date of Order: 8 April 2026.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.