Perishable goods must be released upon payment of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act.

The petitioner, a consignor, transported 17,710 kgs of Dried Areca Nuts to a consignee in New Delhi

During transit, the CGST Authority intercepted and detained the truck and the consignment

The revenue authority issued a show-cause notice on April 13, 2026, under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017

Following a reply from the petitioner, the authority issued an order and demand on April 20, 2026, totaling Rs. 34,58,000 for the goods and Rs. 2,00,000 for the conveyance

The demand was split between Section 129(1)(a) (Rs. 3,45,800) and Section 129(1)(b) (Rs. 34,58,000) of the Act

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking the release of the perishable goods

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the interim release of the detained consignment upon payment of the lower penalty threshold prescribed under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017

2. Whether the release of goods can be independent of the penalties imposed on the conveyance owner

The Court applied Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017, which governs the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit

Specifically, it distinguished between Section 129(1)(a), where the owner comes forward for payment of tax and penalty, and Section 129(1)(b), where the owner does not.

The Court also relied on judicial precedence established in Ranjeet Kumar Poddar v. Assistant Commissioner of CGST & CX (WPA 622 of 2026), which interpreted the procedural requirements for the release of similar consignments

The Court noted that the goods in question (Areca nuts) are perishable in nature

It observed that the revenue authority’s demand order dated April 20, 2026, failed to provide "concrete or unimpeachable evidence" to suggest, even prima facie, that the petitioner was not the bona fide owner of the consignment

Relying on the principle of consistency with its recent judgment in Ranjeet Kumar Poddar, the Court determined that the petitioner should be permitted to seek release by complying with the less onerous provisions of Section 129(1)(a)

The Court reasoned that as long as the petitioner satisfies the statutory penalty as an owner, the goods must be released regardless of the separate proceedings or liabilities involving the conveyance owner

The Court clarified that the release of the consignment is not contingent upon the conveyance owner paying their respective penalty

However, the revenue remains free to realize the full demand if the petitioner fails to file a statutory appeal within three weeks or if the demand attains finality

No order as to costs was made