Release of Detained Goods Valid After Dealer's Death: Wife's Payment of Tax and Partial Penalty Safeguards Revenue Interest Under Section 129 CGST Act

The HC dismissed an appeal against an interim order releasing detained goods and vehicles. The case involved a dispute over Section 129 of CGST Act penalties after a registered dealer's death. The deceased dealer's wife had paid 100% of disputed tax and 10% of penalty, while seeking registration to replace her husband under Section 93 of W.B.GST Act. The court ruled that technical objections should be addressed by the Single Judge, noting that revenue interests were reasonably safeguarded by the payments made. The decision was fact-specific and not intended as legal precedent.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging detention order of goods, interpretation of Section 129 of CGST Act, liability of legal representatives in case of death of registered dealer.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Calcutta High Court challenged the detention order of goods issued by the authority against two trucks containing a consignment of steel and other products. The order in question was an interim order by a Single Judge directing the release of the goods and the vehicle. The Single Judge based the decision on the fact that the appellant, the wife of the deceased dealer, had paid 100% of the disputed tax and 10% of the disputed tax. The Single Judge also noted that the GST Tribunal was non-functional at that time, affecting the appellant's ability to appeal effectively.

The State contended that under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, the penalty should be 200% of the tax, and since the appellant was not a registered dealer, further steps to recover the balance were not permissible. The respondent, representing the deceased dealer, argued that she was in the process of registering herself as a dealer in place of her husband, as allowed under Section 93 of the W.B.GST Act, 2017.

The High Court held that technical objections raised by the appellant should be addressed before the Single Judge, as the interest of revenue seemed reasonably safeguarded by the appellant's payments. The Court emphasized that the decision should not be considered a legal precedent, as it was based on specific facts, including the appellant's status as the wife of the deceased dealer and her pending formal recognition as a dealer.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to comply with the Single Judge's order by a specified date. Both parties were granted the liberty to raise issues and file necessary documents in the writ petition, maintaining the opportunity for further legal proceedings.

---