Disposed

Surojit Das v. Depuy Commissioer of State Tax, Goods and Serviceeee Tax and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Mar 2023MAT/279/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against detention of perishable areca nuts under Section 129(1)(a). Court directed release of goods conditioned upon payment of 200% penalty, subject to final orders in underlying writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Release of detained goods upon payment of 200% penalty within three days, subject to final orders on the writ petition.

Surojit Das Vs Depuy Commissioer of State Tax, Goods and… — Cheque Dishonour | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

Item No.3.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

HEARD ON: 16.03.2023

¶6

DELIVERED ON: 16.03.2023

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

¶10

M.A.T. 279 of 2023 With I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2023

¶11

Surojit Das. Vs.

¶12

Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Goods and Services Tax, Bureau of Investigation, (South Bengal, Head Quarters) & Ors.

¶13

Appearance:-

¶14

Mr. Pranit Bag, Mr. Ghanshyam Jha …. for the appellant

¶15

Mr. T. M. Siddique, Mr. Debasish Ghosh, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee … for the State of W.B.

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM , J.)

¶18

This intra-Court appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against an order dated 3^rd February, 2023 in I.A. No.CAN

¶19

¶20

1 of 2023 in WPA No.24456 of 2022. In the said application, the

¶21

appellant sought for release of the goods, which was detained subject to the condition that the appellant pays penalty at 200% in terms of Section 129 (1)(a) of the CGST/WBGST Act. In fact,

¶22

the prayers sought for in the writ petition is also more or less identical. The learned Single Bench directed affidavit-inopposition to be filed to the application, which has been filed and a reply has also been filed by the appellant. The goods,

¶23

which have been detained is areca nuts and according to the department, the entire transaction is a fake transaction. Both the consignee and the consignor are also fake parties and therefore, the goods have been detained.

¶24

The adjudication has commenced and culminated in an order, which is questioned in the writ petition wherein also there is a relief sought for release of the goods. In any event, detaining the goods will be counter productive as the goods are perishable in nature and as the appellant without prejudice to his rights is willing to pay 200% of the penalty amount in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act, this Court is of the view that the goods can be released subject to such condition and the release shall

¶25

abide by the orders that are to be passed in the writ petition.

¶26

¶27

In the light of the above, the appeal and the application being I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2023 in WPA No.24456 of 2022 are disposed

¶28

of with a direction to the appellant to pay 200% of the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST / WBGST Act and if

¶29

such payment is made, the concerned authority shall release the goods within a period of three days thereafter.

¶30

It is made clear that the release of the goods shall be

¶31

subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition.

¶32

Needless to state that if any investigation has been commenced by the department, the same can be taken to the logical end.

¶33

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

¶35

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J)

¶36

I agree,

¶37

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

¶38

NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C)

Surojit Das v. Depuy Commissioer of State Tax, Goods and Serviceeee Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surojit Das v. Depuy Commissioer of State Tax, Goods and Serviceeee Tax and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyamal Kumar Saha Vs the Public Information Officer M D a U 7 Ors.

The Union of India & Ors. Vs Kalyani Tiary

Executive Director (East Zone) Fci & Ors. Vs Swapna Roy & Ors.

Board of Trustees for Shyama Prasad Mookerjee Port,Kol and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Sankar Samanta & Ors.

Shyamal Das Vs Union of India and Ors.