Surojit Das vs. Depuy Commissioer Of State Tax, Goods And Serviceeee Tax And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, Surojit Das, filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated February 3, 2023, in an application within a writ petition. The appellant sought the release of detained goods, specifically areca nuts. The department detained the goods on the grounds that the transaction was fake, and both the consignor and consignee were fictitious. The appellant was willing to pay a penalty of 200% of the tax amount as stipulated in Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act, without prejudice to their rights. The goods were described as perishable, making their continued detention counterproductive. The writ petition itself also sought the release of the goods.
Held
The Court held that the detained perishable goods, areca nuts, should be released to the appellant upon payment of 200% of the penalty amount in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act. The Court reasoned that detaining perishable goods would be counterproductive. The release of the goods is subject to the condition that the appellant pays the penalty and that such release will abide by the final orders to be passed in the writ petition. The Court directed the concerned authority to release the goods within three days of the payment. The Court also noted that any investigation commenced by the department can be taken to its logical end. The appeal and the interlocutory application were disposed of with these directions. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the detained perishable goods, areca nuts, should be released to the appellant upon payment of 200% of the penalty amount as per Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act, pending the final adjudication of the writ petition? The appellant argued that the goods are perishable and their detention is counterproductive. They are willing to pay the stipulated 200% penalty without prejudice to their rights, seeking the release of the goods. The appellant relies on the principle that perishable goods should not be allowed to deteriorate while legal proceedings are ongoing. The revenue or State contended that the entire transaction is fake, and the consignor and consignee are fictitious, justifying the detention of the goods. The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the revenue regarding the release of goods, but their stance is implied by the detention.
Sections Cited
Section 129(1)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
This intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against an order dated 3rd February, 2023 in I.A. No.CAN
1 of 2023 in WPA No.24456 of 2022. In the said application, the appellant sought for release of the goods, which was detained subject to the condition that the appellant pays penalty at 200% in terms of Section 129 (1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act. In fact, the prayers sought for in the writ petition is also more or less identical. The learned Single Bench directed affidavit-in- opposition to be filed to the application, which has been filed and a reply has also been filed by the appellant. The goods, which have been detained is areca nuts and according to the department, the entire transaction is a fake transaction. Both the consignee and the consignor are also fake parties and therefore, the goods have been detained.
The adjudication has commenced and culminated in an order, which is questioned in the writ petition wherein also there is a relief sought for release of the goods. In any event, detaining the goods will be counter productive as the goods are perishable in nature and as the appellant without prejudice to his rights is willing to pay 200% of the penalty amount in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act, this Court is of the view that the goods can be released subject to such condition and the release shall abide by the orders that are to be passed in the writ petition. 2
In the light of the above, the appeal and the application being I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2023 in WPA No.24456 of 2022 are disposed of with a direction to the appellant to pay 200% of the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST / WBGST Act and if such payment is made, the concerned authority shall release the goods within a period of three days thereafter.
It is made clear that the release of the goods shall be subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition.
Needless to state that if any investigation has been commenced by the department, the same can be taken to the logical end.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J) I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C) 3
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.