Writ petition dismissed as maintainability barred—court upheld that disputed valuation and weighment issues under Section 129(3) must be contested before appellate forum under Section 107 of CGST Act

Case Title: S.N. Trading Co. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., High Court at Calcutta (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri), W.P.A. No. 1240 of 2025, Judgment dated 20 June 2025
Category: Detention & Seizure of Goods under Section 129(3) of CGST Act
Relevant Sections: Sections 15, 107 and 129(3) of CGST Act 2017; Rule 138A of CGST Rules 2017

Facts (Paras 2–6)

The petitioner, S.N. Trading Co., consigned 350 bags (24,500 kg) of Assam dried areca nuts from Siliguri to Kanpur through Nagpur Assam Roadlines, with e-way bill, e-invoice, and consignment note in order. On 16 May 2025, CGST officers detained the truck, finding an excess 420 kg of goods as per weighment slip (26.92 MT vs 24.5 MT declared).
The Assistant Commissioner, Siliguri, issued a notice u/s 129(3) and, on 02 June 2025, finalized the order adopting a higher valuation @ ₹ 240/kg instead of ₹ 145/kg declared, determining higher tax and penalty. The petitioner challenged this in writ, alleging illegal weighment, arbitrary valuation, and jurisdictional error.

Questions before the Court (Paras 7–8)

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite availability of statutory appellate remedy u/s 107.

2. Whether the order u/s 129(3) suffers from lack of jurisdiction, arbitrary enhancement of value, or violation of natural justice.

Observations (Paras 11–14)

The Court noted that:

• The weighment slip showed excess 420 kg; petitioner did not file credible evidence (like weighment certificate at loading point or supplier’s invoice) to rebut the finding.

• Bank records showed no consideration received from the consignee, raising doubts about genuineness.

• The driver’s statement revealed inconsistency about transporter and loading location.

• The Assistant Commissioner examined documents, issued notice, and considered reply. No violation of natural justice was evident.

• Determination of valuation (₹ 240/kg vs ₹ 145/kg) is factual and lies within appellate domain; writ jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate such evidence.

Judgment (Paras 15–17)

The High Court held that:

• The order u/s 129(3) was passed after due process and within jurisdiction.

• Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to contest factual determinations or valuation disputes when an efficacious appeal lies under Section 107.

• Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, granting liberty to file a statutory appeal within prescribed time.

Summary of Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines (Trade Takeaway)

This judgment underscores that valuation disputes, excess-weight allegations, or procedural irregularities in detention orders under Section 129 must be challenged through the statutory appellate route u/s 107 of CGST Act, not through writ petitions. Businesses must maintain weighment certificates, supplier invoices, and payment trails to defend genuineness of consignments, as courts will not re-examine factual matters under Article 226.

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”