The Calcutta High Court has sharply criticised GST authorities for insisting that a Kanpur-based sole proprietor appear in person before them in connection with the detention of goods in transit, holding that Section 116 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 expressly permits appearance through an authorised representative, including an advocate, and that no justification existed for overriding that statutory entitlement. Justice Kausik Chanda, disposing of a writ petition filed by Sunshine Enterprises through Advocate Pranit Bag, simultaneously flagged a far graver procedural failing — the authorities had detained goods and a vehicle for over four months without passing any formal order of seizure, a lapse the Court found incompatible with the statutory time frames prescribed under the CGST Act and the rules framed thereunder.
The dispute concerned 480 cartons of pan masala valued at Rs 36.24 lakh, supplied by Sunshine Enterprises to Maa Kali Traders in Howrah. The consignment was accompanied by tax invoices, e-way bills, and transport documents, and was intercepted on 18 December 2025 while in transit. The vehicle and goods were detained on the spot. When the proprietor sought release, the authorities demanded her personal appearance. She responded through her advocate, requesting that representation through counsel be accepted and pressing for release of the detained consignment. On 14 January 2026, the authorities wrote back, citing a report from the Uttar Pradesh GST department which alleged that Sunshine Enterprises did not exist and had been created to avail wrongful input tax credit — a claim on the basis of which they continued to insist on personal appearance. Advocates Nilotpal Chatterjee appeared for the Revenue.
The Court found no merit in the Revenue’s position on either front. On the question of personal appearance, it held that the statutory framework under Section 116 admits of no ambiguity — a person summoned or otherwise required to appear before a GST officer in connection with any proceedings is entitled to do so through an authorised representative, and the authorities had no basis for departing from this express provision. On the detention itself, the Court observed that the goods were perishable in nature and that the authorities ought to have proceeded within the timelines mandated by the statute, rather than allowing the matter to remain in limbo for four months without formalising the detention into a seizure order or initiating proceedings under Section 129.
The Court also addressed the question of ownership for the purposes of Section 129 proceedings, noting a government circular dated 31 December 2018 which provides that where invoices accompany the goods, either the consignor or the consignee is to be treated as the owner. It observed that the invoices reflected Sunshine Enterprises as consignor and Maa Kali Traders as consignee, and that the authorities ought to have determined ownership accordingly. The Court further noted a communication from the consignee requesting that the goods and vehicle not be released without its consent — a factor that needed to be addressed in a hearing with all parties present.
The Court directed the GST officer to fix a hearing on 10 April 2026, permit the petitioner to appear through her advocate, and issue notice to the consignee within 24 hours. It ordered that after granting an opportunity of hearing to all parties, the authorities must pass an order under the Act within 48 hours. It clarified that if the petitioner deposits the amount contemplated under Section 129(1)(a) and such payment is accepted, the goods and vehicle shall be released in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of the proceedings.
The decision carries significance beyond the individual dispute. The insistence on personal appearance — particularly when directed at an out-of-state assessee — operates in practice as a coercive tool that delays proceedings, prolongs detention of goods, and imposes disproportionate compliance costs on small proprietors. By anchoring its reasoning in Section 116 and the government’s own circular, the Calcutta High Court has reinforced that the right to appear through counsel is not a discretionary concession but a statutory entitlement, and that authorities who disregard it risk having their proceedings set aside for procedural impropriety.