The petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has put a challenge to the order of seizure, which was passed under Section 129 (3) of Uttarakhand G.S.T. Act. Being aggrieved against an order of seizing, an Appeal, being Appeal No. 94 of 2019, was preferred by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Act, which too was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by the judgment of 27th January, 2021.

If the provisions of Section 129 (3), is taken into consideration, the power of seizure, which has been vested therein with the competent authority of seizing of goods or conveyances, was provided after issuance of the notice provided therein under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The order of seizure under Section 129 (3), has been made appealable under Section 107 of the Act, and it is an appeal which the petitioner has preferred before the Appellate Tribunal, which has been decided by the impugned order dated 27th January, 2021. Against the said order of the Appellate

Authority, the statutory remedy provided under the statute is available to the petitioner, under Section 112 of the Act by approaching before the Appellate Tribunal, as against the order passed in appeal under Section 107 of the Act. This is what has been held by the Coordinate Bench of Kerala High Court in a judgement, as reported in [ILR 2021 (1) Kerala 625], Podaran Foods India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala and others, wherein, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as against the order passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act, for seizure of the goods, the Kerala High Court has considered the said aspect and has held that against the said appellate order, the only remedy, which would be available to the petitioner, would be to approach the Appellate Tribunal. The relevant part of the said judgment, as contained in para 6 and 7, are extracted hereunder :-

6. It follows, as a corollary to the above position, that unless there is a possibility of tax evasion, a detention of goods and vehicles cannot be justified, and that an authority vested with the powers of detention under a taxing statute has to bear in mind that the provisions authorizing detention have to be strictly construed for what is at stake is a constitutional right, fundamental or otherwise, of a citizen. There is also the aspect of fairness in the levy and collection of taxes that must inform the authorities entrusted with the said task, for fair implementation of the law has been recognised as an essential attribute of the rule of law in a republic such as ours.

7. Our nation witnessed a paradigm shift in the matter of levy and collection of indirect taxes with the introduction of GST, a destination based consumption tax on the supply of goods and services, through the Constitution (101^st Amendment) Act, 2016. The GST regime that came into effect from 01.07.2017 provides for concurrent exercise of taxing powers by the Centre and the States on the same subject and the Centre and the States are to act in tandem based on the GST Council’s recommendations.

In that eventuality, the Court has held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as against the appellate order passed against the order of seizure under Section 129 (3), would not be maintainable.

Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty left open for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal against the appellate order under Section 112 of the Act.

The aforesaid judgment would be subject to the condition that the State, has already constituted the Appellate Tribunal, as per the provisions contained under Section 110 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in case, if the appellate Tribunal has not been constituted so far, it will be open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application before this Court.