GST Update

 Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 984 Series (CAPS) 

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Nishu

The petitioner, proprietor of M/s Sunshine Enterprises, supplied goods (pan masala) with proper invoice, e-way bill, and consignment note; however, the vehicle was intercepted and detained on 18th December, 2025.

Despite requests for release of goods and vehicle, authorities insisted on personal appearance, citing doubts about the petitioner being a genuine entity.

The petitioner sought representation through an advocate, but the authorities continued to insist on personal appearance and delayed proceedings.

No formal order of seizure/detention was passed even after more than four months, which the Court found improper and against statutory timelines.

The Court held that ownership of goods should be determined based on accompanying documents (invoice/e-way bill), and authorities failed to follow the applicable clarification.

It was observed that the petitioner has the right to be represented through an authorised representative/advocate, and insistence on personal appearance was unjustified.

The Court directed the authorities to fix a hearing and allow representation through counsel, and also issue notice to the consignee.

The petitioner was permitted to deposit penalty under Section 129(1)(a), and the authority was directed to pass an order within 48 hours after hearing.

Upon acceptance of payment, goods and vehicle shall be released; however, the petitioner retains the right to challenge the order before appellate authority.

LINK: CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin

Regards
CAPS