M/S Maa Kamakhya Trader vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court directed a re-weighment of the goods to resolve the dispute regarding the quantity. The petitioner is to bear the expenditure for this re-weighment process, as determined by the appropriate officer of respondent No. 3. The petitioner's authorized representative will be present during the re-weighment, and respondent No. 3 is required to provide seven days' prior notice for this. Any order passed by the Department after this re-weighment (under MOV-9) will be considered as if passed on the date the impugned order was challenged. However, for the purpose of filing an appeal, the limitation period will reset and be calculated from the date of the rectified MOV-9 order. The Court also addressed the furnishing of a bank guarantee for the release of goods, with specific instructions for the department to communicate the requirements to the petitioner within two days of the order's upload, and for the petitioner to execute the physical bank guarantee within five working days thereafter.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Kamakhya Trader, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 03.09.2025, 08.09.2025, and 21.08.2025 passed by respondent No. 3 under Section 129 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The core of the dispute was the Department's finding that the quantity of goods declared by the petitioner was less than what was detected. The petitioner argued that the initial weight measurement was inaccurate, as it involved weighing the entire truck and then deducting the vehicle's weight, which was based on the chassis's dry weight and did not account for the truck's body. The petitioner offered to bear the cost of re-weighing the goods separately.

Key Issues

1. Whether the method of weighing the goods employed by the respondent GST Department, which involved weighing the truck with goods and deducting the vehicle's registered weight, was a correct and accurate determination of the goods' quantity under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the weighing method was flawed because the registered weight of the vehicle pertained only to the chassis's dry weight and did not include the truck's body, leading to an inaccurate calculation of the goods' actual weight. They proposed re-weighing the goods separately at their own expense to ascertain the correct quantity. Revenue's Arguments: The respondent GST Department, through its counsel, indicated willingness to release the goods upon furnishing of a bank guarantee in the name of the President of India, through the Commissioner, CGST, Jabalpur. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the weighing method itself, beyond the procedural aspect of bank guarantee.