This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the respondent under Section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’, for short) for having seized the goods (Arecanut).

2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is a trader and consignor of the Arecanut detained by the respondent while it was in transit being transported from Kasargod to Delhi. When the goods was in conveyance passing through National Highway No.50 of Ilkal town, Bagalkot district, it was seized by the respondent and an order is passed under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Sri Narayan G. Rasalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the goods had been seized, the respondent has verified the goods and they have conducted vehicle verification and submitted a report as per Annexure-F. It is very clear from Annexure-R that there is no difference in the quantity as per the invoice and the quantity as per the PV. In spite of that, they have passed an order under Section 129 of CGST Act and seized the goods. This action of the respondent is without any authority of law. He further contended that before seizing the goods, the respondent has neither given any notice nor an opportunity to explain his case. Hence, the order passed is contrary to the principles of natural justice. He further contended that the Officer who has passed the order Annexure-S is not a competent Authority as defined under the CGST Act and the impugned order passed by the competent authority is without jurisdiction. He further contended that the petitioner has no remedy of appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act on the ground that as per Section 121 of CGST Act in respect of any seizure or retention of the books of accounts and other documents, no appeal is provided. Therefore, the petitioner having no alternative remedy, has approached this Court. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

4. Per contra, Sri. Shivaprabhu S. Hiremath, learned AGA contended that the goods has been seized by the competent authority in the State of Karnataka at 2.30 am on National Highway No.50 on Kushtagi Koppal district. He further contended that any order passed under CGST Act, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Without exhausting the alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court. He further contended that in respect of the very same issue, one Sri. Lakshmi Transport represented by is proprietor has filed an appeal before the competent Authority under Section 107 of the Act and the same is pending consideration before the Appellate Authority. Hence, he submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable. He further contended that Section 129 of the CGST Act provides an appeal only in respect of seizure or detention of the books of accounts or any documents. The material which is seized is the goods. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Competent Authority and sought or dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

6. The case of the petitioner is that, he is a trader and also a consignor of Arecanut which has been seized and detained by the respondent while being transported from Kasaragod to Delhi. The respondent Authority has seized the Arecanut under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act and the impugned order is passed which is produced as Annexure-S. Against the said order, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 107(1) of the Act which is extracted below:

107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by and adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.

7. It is very clear from the aforesaid provision that any person aggrieved by any decision can file an appeal. Section 121 of CGST ACt bars any appeal against the order or decision pertaining to seizure or retention of books of accounts, register or other documents. In the case on hand, the order is passed under Section 129 of the CGST Act and the goods seized is Arecanut and it is not in respect of any documents. Therefore, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. In similar case, in respect of seizure of goods one M/s. Sreelakshmi Transport, represented by its proprietor, is before the Appellate Authority and the same is pending consideration.

8. Under these circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the above writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the competent authority..

All contentions of the parties are left open.