The petitioner, a dealer under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act), migrated to the regime of Goods and Services Tax Act (GST Act). While he was transporting orthopedic implants, the consignment was detained. Faced with proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Act, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

2. This Court through an interim order dated 06.02.2018 directed the authorities to adjudicate the issue of detention under Section 129 of the Act, within three days.

3. As seen from the records, the authorities initially seem to have demanded about ₹ 2,90,000/- for the interim custody of the detained goods, besides penalty of ₹ 1,45,050/-. Now, under Ext.P8, the authorities have determined the tax and penalty to be ₹ 60,440/- (GSTRs. 30,220/- + penalty-Rs.30,220/-).

4. The petitioner’s counsel, nevertheless, contends that when the authorities detained the goods even the very authorities were unaware of the procedure to be adopted. He drew my attention to the Ext.P4 and contended that even the notice was issued under the old format and, later, the GST counsel issued clarifications.

5. As per the petitioner’s assertion, the authorities were unaware the procedure to be followed. The authorities, according to him, ought not have mechanically mulcted penalty on the petitioner. The Government Pleader, on the other hand, submits that the authorities have followed the procedure and passed the Ext.P8 order. If the petitioner has any grievance against it, he can file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

4. Under these circumstances, without adverting to the merits of the matter, I hold that the petitioner can pay the demanded tax and penalty under protest, to got the goods released. Then, the petitioner can contest the penalty proceedings before the appellate forum.

With these observations, I dispose of the Writ Petition.