Shankar Rambhau Ninawe vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Shankar Rambhau Ninawe, filed a writ petition challenging the refusal by the proper officer to treat him as the owner of goods detained under Section 129(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had already paid the penalty under Section 129(1)(a) but the proper officer refused to release the vehicle and goods. The petitioner approached the High Court despite having a remedy of appeal under Section 129(3), as the goods and vehicle remained detained.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the proper officer had refused to treat the petitioner as the owner of the goods based on specific findings. Given that the Court was not inclined to delve into factual issues at that stage, it permitted the petitioner to seek the release of the goods and vehicles. This was contingent upon the petitioner securing the balance amount of penalty, as determined by the proper officer and payable under Section 129(1)(b), in addition to the penalty already paid under Section 129(1)(a). The petitioner was directed to secure this balance amount either through fixed deposit receipts from a nationalized bank, endorsed in favour of the respondents and kept renewed until the appeal's disposal, or through a bank guarantee from a nationalized bank in favour of the respondents, also to be kept renewed. Upon compliance, the proper officer was to release the goods and vehicles after usual formalities and obtaining necessary indemnity. The Court clarified that if no appeal was filed within three months of the release order, the proper officer could encash the fixed deposits or bank guarantee to satisfy the claim. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the proper officer was justified in refusing to treat the petitioner as the owner of the goods detained under Section 129(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, despite the petitioner having paid the penalty under Section 129(1)(a)? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 129(1) and the proper officer's findings at page 197 of the Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the proper officer's refusal to release the vehicle and goods was incorrect, especially since a portion of the penalty had been paid. The petitioner acknowledged the appellate remedy but sought immediate relief due to the continued detention of the goods and vehicle. State's contention: The State's Advocate appeared, and diverse arguments and counter-arguments were made. The judgment does not explicitly detail the State's specific arguments beyond noting the proper officer's findings.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1), Section 129(1)(a), Section 129(1)(b), Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2026
DL-09 Ct. No. 03 Srimanta
In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Juri iction Appellate Side
WPA/4168/2026
Shankar Rambhau Ninawe -Vs.- State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Bulbuli Basu …for the petitioner. Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Mr. Saptak Sanyal …for the State.
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.
Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appears for the State.
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 197 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.
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.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.