Calcutta HC Questions GST Officer's Demand For Personal Appearance When Law Allows Representation Through Counsel

The Calcutta High Court said GST authorities had no basis to insist that a Kanpur-based proprietor appear in person in proceedings over the detention of goods supplied to Maa Kali Traders, especially when the law allows representation through an authorised representative.

In an order dated April 7, 2026, Justice Kausik Chanda disposed of a writ petition arising from the detention of a consignment of pan masala and the vehicle carrying it, which had been intercepted while in transit.

The Court observed,

“Insofar as the insistence on personal appearance is concerned, this Court finds no justification in the stand adopted by the respondents. Section 116 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 expressly permits a person to appear before an officer appointed under the Act in connection with any proceedings thereunder through an authorised representative, including an advocate.”

The petitioner, a sole proprietor of Sunshine Enterprises based in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, had supplied 480 cartons of pan masala valued at Rs 36.24 lakh to Maa Kali Traders in Howrah.

The consignment, backed by tax invoices, e-way bills and transport documents, was intercepted on December 18, 2025. The vehicle and the goods were detained on the spot.

Even after she sought release, the petitioner was told to appear in person. She instead moved through her advocate, asking that she be allowed to participate through counsel and pressing again for release of the goods and vehicle.

A few days later, on January 14, 2026, the authorities wrote back citing a report from the GST department in Uttar Pradesh. It claimed her firm did not exist and had been set up to avail wrongful input tax credit. On that basis, they continued to insist that she appear personally before them.

The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which the authorities had handled the matter, noting:

“This Court is not satisfied with the manner in which the respondent authorities have dealt with the matter. The goods under detention are, without doubt, perishable in nature, and the authorities ought to have proceeded within the statutory time frame prescribed under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the rules framed thereunder.”

It further observed that even after more than four months from the date of interception, no formal order of seizure had been passed and found no justification for delaying proceedings on the ground of the petitioner's non-appearance.

Referring to the government circular dated December 31, 2018, the Court noted that where invoices accompany the goods, either the consignor or the consignee is to be treated as the owner for the purposes of proceedings under Section 129 of the Act.

It observed that the authorities ought to have determined ownership in light of the invoices reflecting the petitioner's firm as consignor and Maa Kali Traders as consignee.

The court also took note of a communication from the consignee requesting that the goods and vehicle not be released without its consent.

Disposing of the petition, the Court directed the concerned GST Officer to fix a hearing on April 10, 2026, and permit the petitioner to be represented through her advocate. It also directed that notice of hearing be issued to the consignee within 24 hours.

The court further directed that, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all parties, the authorities shall pass an order in terms of the Act within 48 hours thereafter.

It clarified that if the petitioner deposits the amount in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act and such payment is accepted, the goods and the vehicle shall be released in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of the proceedings.