The Additional Director General of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence Dggi Vs Ms Sarvadeva Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010038382026

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/705/2026

¶6

in

¶7

WP(C)/318/2026

¶8

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE DGGI

¶9

GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT HOUSE NO 77 RUPKONWAR JYOTI PRASAD AGARWALA PATH NEAR SHANKARDEV KALAKHETRA PANJABARI GUWAHATI 781037

¶10

2: THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE DGGI

¶11

GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT HOUSE NO 77 RUPKONWAR JYOTI PRASAD AGARWALA PATH NEAR SHANKARDEV KALAKHETRA PANJABARI GUWAHATI 781037

¶12

3: SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

¶13

OFFICE OF DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT HOUSE NO 77 RUPKONWAR JYOTI PRASAD AGARWALA PATH NEAR SHANKARDEV KALAKHETRA PANJABARI GUWAHATI 781037

¶14

4: THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

¶15

OFFICE OF DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE GUWAHATI ZONAL UNIT HOUSE NO 77 RUPKONWAR JYOTI PRASAD AGARWALA PATH NEAR SHANKARDEV KALAKHETRA PANJABARI GUWAHATI 78103

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

MS SARVADEVA VANIJYA PVT LTD AND ORS 2ND FLOOR C 5 SHINE TOWER SARABHATI CHARIALI GOLD CINEMA SARABHATI GUWAHATI 781008 REPRESENTED BY SRI ABHISHEK CHHAJER LOCAL BRANCH IN CHARGE AT GUWAHATI

¶18

2:THE UNION OF INDIA

¶19

Page No.# 2/4

¶20

THROUGH THE SECRETAY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI 110001

¶21

3:PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER

¶22

GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE GUWAHATI GST BHAWAN KEDAR ROAD MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI ASSAM 78100

¶23

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C KEYAL, MR K JAIN

¶24

Advocate for the Respondent : DR. ASHOK SARAF, MR P BARUAH

¶25

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶26

ORDER

¶27

12.03.2026

¶28

Heard Shri SC Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel, DGGI for the applicant. Also heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A. Kaushik and Shri B. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party / writ petitioner.

¶29

By the instant application, a prayer has been made for modification / alteration of the order dated 22.01.2026 passed in the connected writ petition being WP(C)/318/2026. By the aforesaid order dated 22.01.2026, this Court had passed an interim direction providing that subject to furnishing of adequate bank guarantee before the respondent no. 2 to cover the demand of tax short paid namely, Rs.2,26,038/- respectively for CGST and SGST totaling to Rs.4,52,076/- by the petitioner, the consignment of the areca nuts along with the vehicle Nos. WE65EB0086 and AS23BC9796 be released forthwith. The primary ground of filing this application is that while passing such interim order, the Court had taken into consideration only the amount of tax short paid and not the penalty involved.

¶30

By drawing the attention of this Court to the order dated 22.12.2025

¶31

Page No.# 3/4

¶32

issued by the Assistant Director, Shri Keyal, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the same would indicate that there is a component of penalty and the total amount would be Rs.99,45,656/-. He accordingly submits that to balance the equities and secure the end of justice, the amount of the bank guarantee should be increased proportionately. He has submitted that in principle, he is not opposed to the aspect of releasing of the goods which are admittedly perishable in nature.

¶33

Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party / writ petitioner has however submitted that while passing the interim direction on 22.01.2026, this Court was apprised of the penalty component which clearly appears from the communication dated 22.12.2025 (Annexure 10 of the writ petition). After such consideration, to secure the amount of tax involved, the present interim order has been passed directing furnishing of a bank guarantee of an amount equivalent to the tax allegedly short paid. He has also informed that in the pretext of filing the IA, the interim order which was passed inter-parte has not been complied with till date.

¶34

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has observed that while passing the interim order dated 22.01.2026, this Court had taken into consideration the amount of tax short paid which is Rs.4,52,076/-. Though, this Court has also noted that Annexure 10 to the writ petition which contains the calculation in a tabular form also constitutes the penalty amount, in the considered opinion of this Court, the primary purpose is to secure the amount of tax short paid as alleged by the Department. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice has been taken into consideration and on being prima facie satisfied, the interim order has been passed, more so, when the goods involved are admittedly of perishable nature. This Court is accordingly

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

of the opinion that no case for modification / alteration of the interim order is made out.

¶37

It is needless to state that that in the event the petitioner fails in the writ petition, the Department will have all the rights to enforce the penalty aspect.

¶38

At this stage, Shri Keyal, learned Senior Standing Counsel has submitted that the bank guarantee should be submitted before the respondent no. 3 – Additional Director General of the DGGI. The interim order dated 22.01.2026 is accordingly modified to the extent of the bank guarantee, as directed vide the order dated 22.01.2026 be furnished in the name of the respondent no. 3 instead of the respondent no. 2.

¶39

I.A. accordingly stands disposed of.

¶40

Comparing Assistant

The Additional Director General of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence Dggi v. Ms Sarvadeva Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Additional Director General of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence Dggi v. Ms Sarvadeva Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prafulla Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sanjay Rajendra Jv Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Sri Pulin Borah Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Shahinur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Varaha Livestock and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Gautam Banerjee Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.