Valuation of goods in transit is for the assessing authority, not check post officers; contested consignments must be released pending adjudication.

Valuation of goods in transit cannot be conclusively determined at roadside check posts under proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax regime; valuation is for the jurisdictional assessing authority and not for check post officers, so reliance on external valuation without consignor participation is impermissible. Where seizures/confiscations showed procedural and substantive defects, interlocutory relief ordering release of goods and vehicles was warranted. Inspection and online reporting obligations under the inspection-reporting framework were not satisfied when a prior inspection was unlogged and an E Way Bill was generated after inspection, invalidating detention on that basis. Tripartite sealed sampling must be conducted for adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether authorities at a check post can determine valuation of goods under proceedings initiated under Section 129/Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether goods seized or confiscated under impugned orders should be released pending adjudication; (iii) Whether the inspection and online reporting in W.P. No.3258 of 2026 satisfies the requirements of Rule 138C of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether authorities at a check post can undertake valuation of goods under Section 129/Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The issue was considered in the light of precedent from various High Courts and the statutory scheme governing seizure/confiscation under Section 129 and Section 130. The valuation question falls within assessment jurisdiction and is not a matter designed to be conclusively determined at roadside check post proceedings. The records show reliance on external valuation without participation of consignors and without proper sample protocol.

Conclusion: The valuation of goods cannot be conclusively undertaken by check post authorities under Section 129 or Section 130; the matter of valuation is for the jurisdictional assessing authority.

Issue (ii): Whether goods seized or confiscated under the impugned orders shall be released to the petitioners pending further proceedings.

Analysis: The statutory objectives of Sections 129 and 130 are to protect revenue but must be exercised within reasonable jurisdictional limits. In the present cases there were procedural and substantive defects in the seizure/confiscation process, including one-sided valuation and deficient sample handling. For consignments in transit where statutory documents under Section 68 were available (except in one matter), continued detention is not justified pending appropriate procedures by the assessing authority.

Conclusion: The interlocutory applications for release of goods are allowed and the seized/confiscated goods and any detained vehicles shall be released to the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the inspection and online reporting in W.P. No.3258 of 2026 complied with Rule 138C of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and whether an E-Way Bill generated after inspection validates the seizure.

Analysis: Rule 138C requires a Part A summary report within 24 hours of inspection and a Part B final report within three days. The respondents recorded only one inspection online (the second) and no report for the first alleged inspection was produced. Evidence suggested the E-Way Bill was prepared after the recorded inspection, and there was no proof of an earlier inspection being logged as required.

Conclusion: The inspection and reporting in W.P. No.3258 of 2026 did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 138C; the consequential seizure/detention cannot be sustained on that basis and the consignment/vehicle shall be released.

Final Conclusion: Orders for release of the seized goods and vehicles are directed, with a requirement that respondents draw tripartite sealed samples (one retained by respondents, one sent to the jurisdictional assessing officer, and one given to the petitioner or representative) to enable appropriate adjudication by the assessing authority without prejudice to further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Valuation of goods in transit is not to be conclusively determined by check post officers under Section 129 or Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; procedural safeguards for inspection reporting (Rule 138C) and tripartite sample-taking must be followed and valuation issues are to be referred to the jurisdictional assessing authority.

---