TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1083
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... April 2, 2026, Annexure P6 at page 40 to the writ petition. 5. The revenue authority then passed its order dated April 6, 2026 at page 46 to the writ petition and then issued the demand dated April 6, 2026, Annexure P7 at page 44 to the writ petition for a total sum of Rs. 51,87,380/- for 35,530 kgs of nuts and additionally on account of conveyance a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 6. Page 50 of the writ petition shows that, the demand in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act is for a sum of Rs. 5,18,738/- and the demand in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of 2017 Act is for Rs. 51,87,380/-. 7. At this juncture, claiming release of the consignment in terms of Section 129 of the 2017 Act the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. Submissions: 8. Mr. Akshat Agarwal, learned Advocate (VC), appearing for the writ petitioner, at the threshold has referred to a circular dated December 31, 2018 issued by the Commissioner (GST), Annexure P8 at page 54 to the writ petition and submits that, the said circular has clarified that if the invoice or any other specified document is accompanying the consignment of goods, then either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submissions, the petitioner prays for release of the consignment in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the 2017 Act. 14. Inasmuch as, Mr. Agarwal on behalf of the petitioner submits that, assailing the order of demand dated April 6, 2026, the petitioner shall prefer a statutory appeal positively within a period of three weeks from date. 15. Mr. Ratan Banik, learned Advocate, being ably assisted by Mr. Bishwa Raj Agarwal, learned Advocate, appearing for the respondents/ Revenue submits that, the show-cause itself would depict that the revenue has denied and disputed the ownership of the petitioner. The revenue has also denied the correctness and validity of the relevant documents being the tax invoices and e-way bills which were produced at the time of interception. The revenue has also disputed the quantity and genuineness of the consignment. 16. Referring to Section 129 (1)(b) of 2017 Act learned Advocate for the revenue submits that, since the ownership has been disputed, in the event of release of consignment in favour of the petitioner as the consignor, the petitioner has to pay the penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods or 200% of the tax payable on such goods whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted and detained during transit. In the relevant statute of 2017 there is no other further provision alike. 22. For convenience the relevant provisions under Section 129 of 2017 Act is quoted below. "129. Detention, Detention, s seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,- (a) On payment of penalty equal to two hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such penalty; (b) On payment of penalty equal to fifty per cent. of the value of the goods or two hundred per cent. of the tax payab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lease of goods are there, it can safely be construed that, the legislative intent was not to create any charge or lien over the goods against or in relation to the demand raised by the revenue. In the event, the levy is not paid, which is otherwise crystalised and determined by the revenue in accordance with law, then the recovery proceeding is prescribed under the statute read with the relevant rules framed thereunder to recover it. Therefore, once the provisions laid down under Section 129 of 2017 Act is satisfied, it is the obligation upon the revenue to release the goods/consignment. 26. In the facts of this case, the show-cause notice shows that, the revenue has raised an objection with regard to the ownership, quality and quantity of the subject goods and also with regard to the authenticity and veracity of the related documents i.e. the tax invoices and e-way bills. In the event, the petitioner, as has undertaken to file statutory appeal assailing the demand succeeds then the law will take its own course accordingly and in the event, the appeal does not succeed then the demand stands for which the petitioner shall be liable to make payment and in the event, the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decided in the said judgment would not apply in the facts of the present case. 31. In the matter of : JJ Traders (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench in addition directed to furnish a bond in terms of Rule 140 of the relevant rules framed under the relevant Act. On reading of the said Rule 140, I am of the view that, it is an independent provision. Inasmuch as, the demand of the revenue is to the extent of Rs. 51,87,380/-. In the event, the said demand is ultimately crystallized in accordance with law, the petitioner will have to pay the same or in default the revenue will initiate its appropriate recovery proceeding in accordance with law. Whether, at this stage the petitioner is the owner of the consignment or not would have no impact in the event the said demand of Rs. 51,87,380/- is finally crystallized. 32. The goods are perishable in nature. The revenue has not come up with any concrete or unimpeachable evidence neither has it mentioned in its order for demand dated April 6, 2026 which would suggest prima facie that, the petitioner is not the owner of the consignment. 33. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussions, this Court holds that, subject to compliance of the ....