GST Authorities cannot Insist on Taxpayer’s Personal Appearance: Allahabad HC says ‘Lawyer Representation’ Sufficient [Read Order]

In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has held that GST authorities cannot insist on the personal appearance of a taxpayer when the law expressly allows representation through an advocate. The Court also directed that detained goods be released upon payment of the statutory penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goodsand Services Tax Act, 2017.

Petitioner Nishu, proprietor of Sunshine Enterprises in Kanpur, sold 480 cartons of pan masala worth ₹36.24 lakh to Maa Kali Traders in Howrah. The goods, transported with valid invoices and e‑way bills, were intercepted on December 18, 2025, and detained by GST officials. Despite repeated requests, no formal seizure order was passed even after four months.

The petitioner claimed ownership of the goods and sought their release along with the vehicle, and as a woman residing in Uttar Pradesh, she should be allowed to be represented by her advocate instead of appearing personally. Her counsel also stated that Section 116 of the GST Act permits representation through an authorised advocate.

The petitioner expressed readiness to pay the penalty under Section 129(1)(a) to secure the release of the goods, without prejudice to her right to appeal.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the GST authorities contended that the petitioner failed to appear personally despite repeated requests, preventing the matter from moving forward. They also relied on a report from the Uttar Pradesh GST department alleging that Sunshine Enterprises was a “non‑existent and bogus entity” created to unlawfully avail input tax credit.

They also produced a letter from the consignee (Maa Kali Traders) dated March 30, 2026, requesting that the goods not be released without their consent.

After submission, the court criticized the authorities for failing to pass a seizure order within the statutory time frame, noting that the goods were perishable. Also court cited a 2018 Revenue Department circular, which clarifies that if invoices accompany the goods, either the consignor or consignee should be deemed the owner.

The bench, Justice Kausik Chanda observed that “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 bench directed the authorities to hold a hearing on April 10, 2026, allowing petitioner counsel to appear on her behalf, and to notify Maa Kali Traders within 24 hours. If the petitioner deposits the penalty under Section 129(1)(a), the goods and vehicle must be released within 48 hours, subject to her right to appeal.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates