Calcutta High Court Directs GST Authorities to Conduct Hearing and Process Release of Detained Goods — Nishu Vs Union of India & Ors.
Case Overview
Court: Calcutta High Court
Case: Nishu Vs Union of India & Ors.
Writ Petition: WPA 1392 of 2026
Subject Matter: Release of goods and vehicle detained under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
The Calcutta High Court recently delivered a significant ruling concerning the prolonged detention of goods and a vehicle intercepted during transit, where the respondent authorities failed to pass a formal seizure or detention order for a period exceeding four months. The Court's intervention brought into sharp focus two critical issues — the statutory obligation of GST authorities to act within prescribed timeframes, and the unequivocal right of an assessee to be represented through an authorised representative, including an advocate, during proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Background and Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Nishu, described herself as the sole proprietor of M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, a firm registered and operating out of Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Her firm had executed a sale of 480 cartons of pan masala valued at Rs. 36,24,000/- to M/s. Maa Kali Traders, a consignee situated in Howrah, West Bengal. The transaction was completed on December 15, 2025, and the goods were dispatched via a vehicle bearing registration number UP 25 HT 6157. All requisite documentation accompanied the shipment, including a tax invoice, an e-way bill, and a consignment note.
Interception and Detention
On December 18, 2025, the said vehicle was intercepted by the respondent authorities, and Form MOV-02 was issued on the same date, leading to the detention of both the vehicle and the goods loaded therein.
Following the detention, the assessee, through a letter dated January 7, 2026, approached the respondent authorities seeking release of the detained goods and vehicle, asserting her ownership over the consignment. However, the authorities responded on January 8, 2026, insisting that the petitioner appear before them in person before any further steps could be taken.
Escalation and Advocate Representation Request
On January 12, 2026, the petitioner's advocate wrote to the authorities reiterating the request for release and formally seeking permission for the petitioner to be represented through counsel. Instead of granting this request, the respondent authorities — by a letter dated January 14, 2026 — informed the petitioner that they had received a report from the GST Authority in Uttar Pradesh, which alleged that M/s. Sunshine Enterprises was a non-existent and bogus entity purportedly created for the illegal availment of input tax credit. On this basis, the authorities continued to insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioner.
The petitioner once again reiterated, through a letter dated January 15, 2026, her request to be allowed representation through an advocate rather than being compelled to appear in person.
Consignee's Letter
During the course of proceedings before the Court, the respondent authorities also produced a letter dated March 30, 2026 from the consignee M/s. Maa Kali Traders, in which the consignee requested that the detained goods and vehicle not be released without its consent. The consignee also expressed readiness to participate in proceedings either through physical appearance or via video conferencing.