2026 (1) TMI 895 - HC - GST

Release of detained perishable consignment based on title document; owner ordered to deposit Rs.5,23,264 for release

Dominant issue - entitlement to release of detained perishable consignment: The HC found the document of title seized with the goods established the ... Seeking release of detained consignment - appellant is the owner of the consignment or not - perishable goods - Appellant is ready and willing to furnish amount of penalty imposed by way of a security to the authority - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the present case, document of title to the consignment was seized with the goods. The document of title seized suggests ownership of the appellant in respect of the seized consignment - there is no contrary claim by any of the parties with regard to the seized consignment. It is the Circular dated December 31, 2018 of the authorities itself that lays the issue of ownership of the consignment at rest with the appellant being treated as the owner of the seized consignment as documents of title were accompanying the seized goods. In M/s. JJ Traders [2025 (12) TMI 1535 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], the Court directed release of the goods and the conveyance taking into account the perishable nature of the areca nuts seized by directing furnishing of security in terms of the Section 129(1)(a) of the Act of 2017 and furnishing security for the balance sum determined under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act of 2017 in the form of a bank guarantee. Factual scenario in the present case is different. No one before us is claiming release of the vehicle. In S.N. Trading Company & Anr. [2025 (11) TMI 1940 - SC ORDER], Hon’ble Supreme Court during consideration of a Special Leave Petition sought various information from the appellant with regard to the ownership of the seized consignment. As noted above, the ownership of the seized consignment in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not in dispute. In such facts and circumstances, considering the perishable nature of the seized consignment and taking the appellant as the owner of the seized consignment and the offer of the appellant to secure the amount claimed as against the owner of the consignment, the appellant is directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 5,23,264/- with the respondent authorities within a period of 7(seven) days from date by way of a bank draft or equal instrument. Appeal disposed off. Issues: Whether seized perishable consignment (areca nuts) should be released to the claimant-appellant as owner on deposit of the penalty quantified in the notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, and related interim relief measures.Analysis: The Court examined documentary evidence accompanying the consignment, noting that documents of title were seized with the goods and that no other claimants challenged ownership. The Court considered the Circular dated December 31, 2018 concerning determination of ownership where invoice or specified documents accompany goods. The impugned notice under Section 129(3) assessed the liability of the owner at Rs. 5,23,264/-. The perishable nature of the goods and precedents concerning interim release on furnishing security were also considered, with distinction drawn where factual scenarios differ (for example, release of vehicle in other cases).Conclusion: The appellant is to be treated as owner of the seized consignment for the purpose of interim relief; the appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 5,23,264/- within seven days by bank draft or equivalent instrument, upon which the respondent authorities shall release the seized consignment forthwith; the deposit shall abide the result of the pending writ petition.