GST detention proceedings allow advocate representation and require prompt, time-bound determination before release of goods and vehicle.

Representation through an authorised advocate was permitted in GST detention proceedings, and insisting on the taxpayer's personal appearance was unwarranted where the consignment documents identified the consignor and consignee. The detention scheme under Section 129 required prompt hearing and a time-bound determination of ownership and release, particularly where the goods were said to be perishable and no formal seizure order had been passed for an extended period. The authorities were therefore required to hear the consignee, proceed under the statutory framework, and release the goods and vehicle if payment under Section 129(1)(a) was accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the authorities were justified in insisting on the petitioner's personal appearance and refusing representation through an advocate, (ii) whether the authorities were required to proceed expeditiously and determine the matter under the statutory scheme governing detention of goods and vehicle.

Issue (i): whether the authorities were justified in insisting on the petitioner's personal appearance and refusing representation through an advocate.

Analysis: Section 116 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits appearance through an authorised representative, including an advocate, in proceedings under the Act. The insistence on personal appearance was therefore unwarranted, particularly when the petitioner had sought to appear through counsel and the invoice documents identified the consignor and consignee.

Conclusion: The insistence on the petitioner's personal appearance was unjustified, and representation through an advocate was permitted.

Issue (ii): whether the authorities were required to proceed expeditiously and determine the matter under the statutory scheme governing detention of goods and vehicle.

Analysis: The goods were stated to be perishable, yet no formal order of seizure had been passed even after a prolonged period from interception. The statutory scheme under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 required prompt determination of ownership, hearing of the parties, and decision within the prescribed timeframe. The circular clarifying ownership under Section 129(1) indicated that where the invoice accompanied the consignment, either consignor or consignee could be treated as owner, and the respondents ought to have acted on that basis.

Conclusion: The authorities were directed to fix a hearing, permit representation through advocate, hear the consignee, and pass an order under Section 129(5) within the stipulated time, with release of the goods and vehicle if payment under Section 129(1)(a) was accepted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of securing procedural safeguards, a prompt hearing, and a time-bound statutory decision on release of the detained goods and vehicle.

Ratio Decidendi: A person proceeded against under the detention provisions of the GST law may be represented through an authorised advocate, and the authorities must determine ownership and complete the Section 129 process within the statutory framework without insisting on unnecessary personal appearance.

---