Ratul Talukdar v. Union of India & Ors.

On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record more so the impugned order dated

21.07.2025 issued vide order no. 24/25-26, it appears that at page 2 of the order, the details of consignor and consignee has been provided along with details of transporter and owner of the vehicle, though it is noted at column 5 that the transporter is a non-existent entity.

It appears that the said order has been passed by imposing the following penalty:-

11. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I hereby calculate and confirm the penalty in the following manner:- (i) I confirm the penalty of Rs. 8,31,600/- (Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred) only under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with clause (a) of sub- section (1) of Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of above penalty. (ii) I confirm the penalty of IGST amounting to Rs. 83,16,000/- (Eighty Three Lakhs Sixteen Thousand) only under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of the Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, where the owner of the goods does not comes forward for payment of above penalty. (iii) I further confirm a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two Lakh) only under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with ftrst proviso of sub-section (6) of the Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 and sub-section (3) of section 129 ibid, against conveyance of conveyance shall be released on payment by the transporter of the said penalty………..

the goods and

The petitioner herein is the proprietor of the consignor in the present case and has filed documents in support of his proprietorship.

It appears from page 4 of the impugned order that admittedly the consignment was intercepted by the respondent on

02.07.2025 and physical verification was done on 07.04.2025 on weighing the goods, against invoice.

The respondents herein found that the transporter “prime logistic” is non-existent on verification. It has been further stated that neither the consignor nor the consignee came to claim the goods and as such the respondent found the consignor and consignee also to be fraudulent entities.

The respondent then proceeded to hold as follows:- case, GSTIN “………….In the same non-existent transporter details are found in the E-way bill (copy of consignment note of the transporter also provided by the driver) also both the consignor M/s Talukdar Enterprises, consignee M/s A P Traders, GSTIN 07CEIPP1150G1ZN are new registrant having taken GST registration on 27.05.2025 & 16.06.2025 respectively. The GSTIN Status of M/s Talukdar Enterprises is “Suspended (Effective from 07/07/2025)”. The GSTIN Status of M/s AP Traders is –“Suspended (Effective from 04/07/2025)”……………” 18AWEPT2079E1ZB

Hence the prosecution and the writ petition herein.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in MAT 2 of 2026 Riya Das vs Inspector of CGST & CX, Headquarter, Anti Evasion Unit, Siliguri Commissionerate & Ors. Dated 9th January, 2026, wherein the Court relying upon the judgment in M/s. J.J. Traders vs Union of India & Ors. in WPA 2144 of 2025, decided on 10.12.2025 and S.N. Trading Company & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors., MAT 48 of 2025, decided on 26.06.2025 held that in the said case the ownership of the seized consignment was not in dispute and accordingly directed as follows:-

20. In such facts and circumstances, considering the perishable nature of the seized consignment and taking the appellant as the owner of the seized consignment and the offer of the appellant to secure the amount claimed as against the owner of the consignment, we direct the appellant to deposit the sum of Rs.5,23,264/- with the respondent authorities within a period of 7(seven) days from date by way of a bank draft or equal instrument. 21. Upon such deposit being made, the respondent authorities will release the seized consignment in favour of the appellant forthwith. 22. The amount deposit shall abide by the result of the pending writ petition.

The respondent CGST has also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench passed in S.N. Trading Company (Supra) which has been relied upon by the Division Bench in Riya Das (Supra).

The Division Bench in S.N. Trading Company (Supra) had upheld the order of the learned Single Judge who had relegated the appellants to avail the statutory appeal remedy, but directed the return of the seized vehicles on certain terms and conditions and also directed public auction of the perishable goods, permitting the appellants to participate in such auction.

The matter in S.N. Trading Company (Supra) travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No. 22173 of 2025, vide an order dated

19.11.2025 passed the following order:- the partnership “16. We want to know four things from the petitioner: (1) How did consignment of areca nuts? (2) From where did they procure it? (3) For whom did they procure it? and (4) The entire consignment of areca nuts was being transported and was to be delivered at which place? firm procure

17. More importantly, the petitioner needs to explain the discrepancies as mentioned in the notice issued under Section 129 the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act, 2017”) more particularly three things:- (3) of a) The gross weight of goods along with conveyance is found to be 36.31 MT in the weighment slip produced the river after tare weight of interception. The conveyance is mentioned to be 11.390 MT in the weighment slip as provided by the driver cum person charge of the conveyance at the time of Interception. Therefore, conveyance is found to be 24.920 MT (Gross weight minus tare weight), which is not matching with the quantity of goods mentioned in the invoice as well as E- way Bill tendered by the driver cum person in charge. Hence Excess goods weighing 420 kgs was found in the conveyance. the net weight of the goods b) Time of issuance of E-Way Bill was before the time of weighment of goods in the invoice vide Slip No.29851 Dated 13.05.2025 c) Weight mentioned in the Invoice is less than the weight mentioned in weighment.””

The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 19.11.2025 finally dismissed the Special Leave Petition on the observation that the Court did not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court and as such the order dated

26.06.2025 of the Division Bench in MAT 48 of 2025 stands.

In the present case, this Court finds that the facts herein are similar to the observation of the Supreme Court in Paragraph 17 of SLP against the judgment in S.N. Trading Company (Supra).

In the judgment of Riya Das (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the Division Bench has passed orders only regarding release of the seized consignment. The petitioner herein has not only prayed for release of the vehicle and the seized perishable goods, but has also prayed for setting aside of the order dated July 21, 2025 passed by the respondent no. 2.

Thus in view of the judgments relied upon by the parties herein and as discussed above and also keeping in mind the view of the Single Bench in WPA 1240 of 2025 dated 20.06.2025, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 within 30 days from the date of this order. Period of limitation is extended for 30 days in the interest of justice. The impugned order in the present case shall remain stayed for 30 days. In case no appeal is preferred within 30 days, the order of stay shall stand vacated automatically and the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Now relying upon the view taken by the Division Bench of this High Court in MAT 48 of 2025. It is directed that the respondents/department shall sell the goods, which are stated to be dried areca nuts by calling for a public auction and the appellants are also entitled to participate in such auction.

Upon the goods being sold and the successful bidder remitting the amount, the amount shall be retained by the department preferably in an interest bearing account and shall abide by the ultimate orders that may be passed by the appellate authority. It is to be noted that the appellants will also be entitled to participate in the auction to be called for by the respondents authority.

So far as the vehicle is concerned, the respondents authority is directed to release the vehicle on payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and furnishing a bond of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand) undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required. This payment shall also be subject to the outcome of the appeal before the statutory appellate authority.

The sale of the areca nuts shall be done at the earliest, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of server copy of the order and the vehicle in question shall be released within seven days from the date on which the appellants remit a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and furnishes a bond of the remaining amount as directed for the satisfaction of the respondents authority.

All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. [Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]