Authority: Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri

Order Date: 24 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal No. MAT 31 of 2026, CAN 1 of 2026; intra‑court appeal filed by Ratul Talukdar (appellant) against Union of India & Ors (respondents).
  • Counsel for appellant: Mr. Mainak Bose (Senior Advocate), Mr. Shakeel Mahammad Akhter, Mr. Bikash Singha. Counsel for respondents: Mr. Ratan Banik, Mr. Bishwa Raj Agarwal.
  • Central issue: Whether the CGST authorities had jurisdiction to detain and seize goods under Section 17 of the Integrated GST Act, 2017 and Section 20 thereof, and whether the Single Judge erred in directing auction of the seized goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act.
  • Appellant contended that the State of West Bengal, as the intermediary state, lacked authority to detain/auction goods; he claimed ownership of the goods as proprietor of Talukdar Enterprises.
  • Respondent argued that the CGST authorities were empowered under Section 20 of the IGST Act to detain goods and that the appellant had admitted before the Anti‑Evasion Section that he was not the consignor and was a painter by profession.
  • The authority produced, for the first time, a letter allegedly written by the appellant to the Superintendent, Headquarters, Anti‑Evasion, CGST Guwahati Commissionerate, stating that his PAN, Aadhaar and electricity bill had been fraudulently used to obtain GST registration for M/s Talukdar Enterprises. The letter (typed by officers) was included verbatim in the record.
  • The Single Judge had disposed of the writ petition without calling for affidavits, directing the CGST authorities to auction the goods and to compel the appellant to participate in the auction.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the auction and in ordering the appellant’s participation.
  • The Court upheld the specific finding in paragraph 20 of the impugned order that the vehicle be released in favour of the registered owner.
  • Apart from paragraph 20, the entire impugned order is set aside.
  • The appellant may approach the CGST authority for release of the goods under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act; release will be subject to the final decision in the writ petition.
  • Jurisdictional questions regarding the CGST authority’s power to detain and seize the goods will be decided afresh in the writ petition after exchange of affidavits.
  • Directions: Affidavit‑in‑opposition to be filed within four weeks from the date of this order; any reply to be filed within two weeks thereafter.
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties are directed to act on the basis of the server copy of this order.

Topics: GST, Judicial Review, Tax Seizure