ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The written instructions supplied by the respondent department is taken on record. The copy of the same has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order passed under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of U.P.G.S.T. Act with the assertion that the entire proceedings of search and seizure of the goods is in violation of the provisions of U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and the rules made thereunder.

It is argued that though the seizure memo in GST MOV-02 was served upon the driver of the vehicle at the time of interception of the goods but copy of the detention order of the goods and vehicle in FORM GST MOV-06 has not been served.

This submission is categorically refuted in the written instructions with the contention that the copy of the FORM GST MOV-06 had been served upon the custodian of goods/driver. In any case, the petitioner herein claims to be owner of the goods and was not present at the time of interception of the goods, he, therefore, can not be permitted to argue that the seizure order in FORM GST MOV-06 has not been served upon the custodian of the goods/the driver concerned.

It is further argued that the authority functioning under the Act could not be permitted to detain the goods except in accordance with the provisions of Section 129(1). The proceedings under Section 129 of the Act in exercise of powers conferred under Section 68 of the Act can only be permitted to be conducted by the authorities to detain the goods and the goods cannot be detained arbitrarily only by making allegations that there is difference in the signatures. It is argued that the grounds of detention of goods is the difference in signatures of the registered person in the partnership deed uploaded at the time of registration and the invoice and E-way bill generated for transportation of goods.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent revenue that in the proceedings under Section 129(3), it was held that the petitioner herein is not the owner of the goods and liability for penalty, has, thus been imposed under Section 129(1)(b).

Noticing this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that the remedy before the petitioner is to file appeal under Section 107 of U.P.G.S.T. and C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 against the order passed under Section 129 whereunder the proper officer detaining or seizing goods passed order for payment of penalty under Clause (a) and (b) of Sub Section (1).

In the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, all factual issues being raised herein can very well be agitated before the appellate authority.

The writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.