Detained perishable goods must be released to the consignor under Section 129(1)(a) upon payment of penalty.

By | August 6, 2026
0 Comment

Detained perishable goods must be released to the consignor under Section 129(1)(a) upon payment of penalty.

Detained perishable goods must be released to the consignor under Section 129(1)(a) upon payment of penalty.

Issue

  • Whether detained perishable goods transported in transit can be released to the consignor under Section 129(1)(a) without requiring payment for the conveyance by its owner.

Facts

  • The petitioner, acting as the consignor, supplied and transported a consignment of dried areca nuts to a consignee based in New Delhi.
  • During transit, the Revenue intercepted the truck and detained both the consignment and the conveyance.
  • The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) for the detention, to which the petitioner submitted a formal reply.
  • The Revenue subsequently passed an order confirming a demand of ₹34.58 lakhs for the goods and an additional ₹2.00 lakhs on account of the conveyance.
  • The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the release of the detained consignment in terms of Section 129 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017.
  • The Revenue failed to produce concrete evidence or record any finding in its demand order suggesting that the petitioner was not the owner of the consignment.

Decision

  • Perishable Nature of Goods: Considering that the dried areca nuts were perishable and the Revenue produced no evidence disproving the petitioner’s ownership, directions for release were warranted.
  • Compliance with Section 129(1)(a): The consignment was ordered to be released in favor of the petitioner within three days, subject to the petitioner complying with Section 129(1)(a).
  • Independent Release of Goods: The court clarified that upon payment of the penalty under Section 129(1)(a) by the petitioner, the goods must be released regardless of whether the conveyance owner pays the penalty for the vehicle.
  • Outcome: Decided in favor of the assessee.

Key Takeaways

  • Perishable Goods Protection: Courts prioritize the expedited release of perishable commodities detained under Section 129 to prevent irreparable commercial loss.
  • Independent Release of Goods and Conveyance: The owner of the goods can secure their release under Section 129(1)(a) independently without being conditional on the vehicle owner paying the penalty for the conveyance.
  • Evidentiary Requirement for Ownership Disproof: The Revenue cannot deny ownership claims under Section 129 without recording clear, concrete findings and evidence in the demand order.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Raja Supari Processing Unit
v.
Union of India
Aniruddha Roy, J.
WPA No. 647 OF 2026
MAY  18, 2026
Pulkit Verma, Ms. Pooja Sah and A.R. Chowdhury, Advs. for the Petitioner. Dilip Kumar Agarwal and Bishwa Raj Agarwal, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Facts:
1. The petitioner as a consignor claims to have supplied and transported Dried Areca Nuts (hereinafter, the nuts) for a quantity of 17,710 kgs. pursuant to the order placed by one M/s. Bhairav International at New Delhi (hereinafter, the consignee).
2. During the transit the truck, through which the goods were transported, was intercepted by the CGST Authority and the consignment and the conveyance had been detained.
3. The revenue authority had issued a show-cause notice dated April 13, 2026, annexure P/7 at page 56 to the writ petition under Section 129(3) of 2017 Act read with Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017.
4. Petitioner has submitted its reply dated April 17, 2026, Annexure P/8 at page 62 to the writ petition.
5. The revenue authority then passed its order dated April 20, 2026 at page 78 to the writ petition and then issued the demand dated April 20, 2026, Annexure P/10 at page 79 to the writ petition for a total sum of Rs.34,58,000/- for 18,200 kgs of nuts and additionally on account of conveyance a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
6. Page 83 & 84 of the writ petition shows that, the demand in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act is for a sum of Rs.3,45,800/- and the demand in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of 2017 Act is for Rs.34,58,000/-.
7. At this juncture, claiming release of the consignment in terms of Section 129 of the 2017 Act the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
Submissions:
8. Mr. Pulkit Verma, learned Advocate (VC), with Ms. Pooja Sah, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submits that in the similar facts and situation and on identical point of law, this Court has already delivered a judgment on May 14, 2026, In the matter of : Ranjeet Kumar Poddar v. Asstt. Commissioner of CGST & CX Headquarter 116 GST 49/110 GSTL 28 (Calcutta)/WPA 622 of 2026 where the writ petitioner therein was permitted to have the consignment released in compliance of the provision laid down under Section 129 (1)(a) of 2017 Act and consequential directions have also been made.
9. Mr. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, learned Advocate, with Mr. Bishwa Raj Agarwal, learned Advocate, appearing for the revenue submits that till date no appeal has been carried out from the said judgment dated May 14, 2026.
Decision:
10. Since the goods are perishable in nature and the revenue has not come up with any concrete or unimpeachable evidence neither has it mentioned in its order for demand dated April 20, 2026 which would suggest, prima facie, that the petitioner is not the owner of the consignment, necessary directions are passed hereinafter.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court holds that, subject to compliance of the provisions laid down under Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act, the consignment shall be released in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. The consignment shall be released positively within the next three clear days from the date of deposit of the amount by the petitioner in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act.
12. In the event, the petitioner fails to file statutory appeal within three weeks from date, as undertaken by him or beyond the period of limitation, if any, prescribed under the law, and the demand attains its finality, the revenue authority shall be free to proceed against the petitioner to realize the demand in accordance with law.
13. It is further clarified that in the event, the petitioner pays the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act, irrespective of payment on account of the conveyance by the conveyance owner, the consignment shall be released in favour of the petitioner.
14. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition WPA 647 of 2026 stands disposed of, without any order as to costs.
15. Parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.