Transit-State Detention of Goods under Section 129 CGST Act: Allahabad High Court in Sawarlal Agarwal

This article examines whether the officers of a State that goods only cross on an inter-State journey can detain and seize them under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, in the light of the Allahabad High Court's decision of 3 September 2026 in Sawarlal Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ Tax No. 3051 of 2026.

The question arises regularly for transporters and consignors whose vehicles are stopped on highways far from the place of supply. Knowing the limit of a transit State's power determines whether the right response to a detention order is to contest jurisdiction or to meet the merits.

The issue

Facts in the writ petition

The goods were moving from Delhi to Kolkata in West Bengal, passing through Uttar Pradesh. The vehicle was intercepted in Uttar Pradesh on the allegation that the documents held by the person in charge did not correspond to the goods. The goods were seized and proceedings were initiated under Section 129(1). The petitioner's contention was that the goods were never meant for Uttar Pradesh and were only crossing it for West Bengal, so the Uttar Pradesh authorities had no jurisdiction.

Vocabulary of an inter-State movement

• The origin State is where the movement begins.
• The destination State is where the goods are to be delivered.
• A transit State is one through which the vehicle travels, with no delivery or consumption intended there.