TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... carrying on business under the nomenclature of "A. P. Traders" at 22A, Mayur Vihar Phase 3 Road, East Delhi, Pin-110096 under Invoice No. 049 dated July 1, 2025. The said goods were despatched to the said trader in a goods vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ 19 GJ 8990 along with E-Way Bill bearing No. 8815 4851 2459 generated by the petitioner on July 1, 2025 at 1643 Hours and Transporter's Challan issued by Prime Logistic, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati. iii. While the said vehicle carrying the said goods was in transit and moving towards its destination through Fulbari, Jalpaiguri, the said vehicle carrying the said goods was intercepted by the authorised officer of the Headquarters, Anti-Evasion Unit, Siliguri CGST & CX Commissionerate, being the respondent No. 3 herein, on July 2, 2025 at around 2135 Hours. Upon such interception, the driver of the said vehicle tendered the documents including the said invoice, E-Way Bill and Transporter's Challan to the respondent for verification. iv. After verification of the tendered documents, the respondent No. 3 issued an order under FORM GST MOV-02 to the driver of the said vehicle on July 2, 2025 seeking physical ver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... owner. The Driver of the said vehicle was carrying the documents in terms of Rule 138A(1)(a) and (b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which includes invoice and E-way Bill, and as such there is no violation of the provisions of Section 68 of the said Act of 2017. Thus, the provisions of Section 129 of the said Act of 2017 has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record more so the impugned order dated 21.07.2025 issued vide order no. 24/25-26, it appears that at page 2 of the order, the details of consignor and consignee has been provided along with details of transporter and owner of the vehicle, though it is noted at column 5 that the transporter is a non-existent entity. 4. It appears that the said order has been passed by imposing the following penalty:- "11. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, I hereby calculate and confirm the penalty in the following manner:- (i) I confirm the penalty of Rs. 8,31,600/- (Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred) only under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 read wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Commissionerate & Ors. Dated 9th January, 2026, wherein the Court relying upon the judgment in M/s. J.J. Traders vs Union of India & Ors. in WPA 2144 of 2025, decided on 10.12.2025 and S.N. Trading Company & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors., MAT 48 of 2025, decided on 26.06.2025 held that in the said case the ownership of the seized consignment was not in dispute and accordingly directed as follows:- "20. 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, we direct the appellant 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. 21. Upon such deposit being made, the respondent authorities will release the seized consignment in favour of the appellant forthwith. 22. The amount deposit shall abide by the result of the pending writ petition." 11. The respondent CGST has also relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench passed in S.N. Trading Company....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Division Bench in MAT 48 of 2025 stands. 15. In the present case, this Court finds that the facts herein are similar to the observation of the Supreme Court in Paragraph 17 of SLP against the judgment in S.N. Trading Company (Supra). 16. In the judgment of Riya Das (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner, the Division Bench has passed orders only regarding release of the seized consignment. The petitioner herein has not only prayed for release of the vehicle and the seized perishable goods, but has also prayed for setting aside of the order dated July 21, 2025 passed by the respondent no. 2. 17. Thus in view of the judgments relied upon by the parties herein and as discussed above and also keeping in mind the view of the Single Bench in WPA 1240 of 2025 dated 20.06.2025, the petitioner is at liberty to prefer a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 within 30 days from the date of this order. Period of limitation is extended for 30 days in the interest of justice. The impugned order in the present case shall remain stayed for 30 days. In case no appeal is preferred within 30 days, the order of stay shall stand vacated automatically and the respondent autho....