Jagannath Trading vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Jagannath Trading, filed an intra-court appeal against a Single Bench order that declined an interim order and directed affidavits. During the appeal, the appellant sought to bring on record a show-cause notice issued under Section 129(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017, read with the CGST Act, 2017, to which they had submitted a reply. The State submitted that an order under Section 129(3) of the Act had been passed on December 6, 2024. The appeal concerned the detention of a TATA truck carrying 17760 kg of Areca-nuts.
Held
The Court held that the detained vehicle should be released upon the appellant paying a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent authorities within three days of payment. This decision was based on the reasoning that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and become scrap. Regarding the Areca-nuts, the Court directed the department to sell them at the best realizable price within 15 days of receiving the order's server copy. The sale proceeds are to be retained in a separate account, subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. The appellant was granted leave to participate in the auction sale. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the ultimate challenge to the detention, show-cause notice, and final order remains to be agitated in the pending writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the detained vehicle (TATA truck) should be released pending the outcome of the writ petition, considering the risk of deterioration and reduction to scrap. 2. Whether the detained goods (Areca-nuts) should be sold pending the outcome of the writ petition, given their perishable nature and potential to become unfit for consumption. Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant argued that the continued detention of the vehicle would lead to its deterioration. They also implicitly sought relief regarding the detained goods, as the subsequent directions indicate a need to address their perishability. Revenue's Arguments: The State did not explicitly argue on the release of the vehicle or sale of goods. However, they informed the court about the order passed under Section 129(3) of the Act, indicating their position on the detention and seizure.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1), Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2025 Item No.3
Ct. No.01 SM/SG MAT 296 of 2025 with IA NO: CAN/1/2025 with CAN/2/2025 with CAN/3/2025 ….For the Appellant
Mr. Anirban Ray, G.P. (Sr. Adv.) Mr. T.M. Siddiqui, A.G.P. (Sr.Adv.) Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Saptak Sanyal, Adv. ….For the State-Respondent
The intra-court appeal is directed against an order by which learned Single Bench declined to grant any interim order but directed affidavits to be filed. During the pendency of the appeal there appears to have been subsequent developments which necessitated the appellant to file CAN/3/2025 to bring on record the show-cause notice which was issued to the appellant under section 129(1) of the WBGST Act, 2017 read with CGST Act, 2017. The appellant stated to have submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. These facts are sought to be brought on record by the petitioner by way of this application in CAN/3/2025. 2
Learned senior advocate appearing for the State submitted that subsequently an order has been passed under section 129(3) of the Act dated 6th December, 2024, copy of which handed over to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. The said order shall be forwarded to the e-mail address of the appellant which shall be furnished by the appellant to the department.
So far as the challenge to the detention, show-cause notice or the final order is concerned, it is for the appellant to agitate the claims in the pending writ petition. Two issues which arise out of the matter is detention of the vehicles and the goods. Vehicles is the TATA truck which was carrying the goods which are Areca-nuts measuring a quantity of 17760 kg. If the vehicle continues to be under detention the vehicle will get deteriorated and it will ultimately be reduced to a scrap. Therefore, we direct the respondent authorities to release the vehicle in question subject to appellant paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the appropriate authority of the respondent and the vehicle should be released with three days from the date of payment.
So far as the goods are concerned, since they are stated to be Areca-nuts, they have self-life. If the Areca-nuts which are packed in 222 bags of 80 kg. which will ultimately be unfit for human
3 consumption and destruction has to be ordered. Therefore, we direct the department to sell the Areca- nuts at the best possible price which is realisable within 15 days from receipt of server copy of the order and retain the sale proceeds in a separate account subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It will be well-open to the appellant to participate in the auction sale proceeding.
Leave is granted to the appellant to file a separate application in the pending writ petition bringing on record the subsequent event and also canvass additional ground.
With these aforesaid directions, the appeal along with all the applications is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis, upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
[T.S. SIVAGNANAM] CHIEF JUSTICE
[CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), 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.