The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Exts.P3 and P3(a) issued by the 1^st respondent and for a direction to the said respondent to release the vehicle detained under it.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, submits that his client has already preferred Ext.P5 reply to Exts.P4 and P4(a) proceedings, but that without considering the same in its proper perspective, a notice under Section 122(1)(2) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been issued. He asserts that, as is evident from Ext.P6, the Authority has taken a view that only a physical verification report in MOV-04 and order for detention in MOV-06 have been issued. He, therefore, contends that the proceedings now initiated against his client, through Ext.P6, cannot find favour in law.

3. Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, then submitted that, in any event of the matter, going by Section 129 of the Act, action can be taken only against detention and seizure of goods and conveyance in transit. He argued that since it is conceded that the vehicle in question did not have any commodity loaded in it, any action under Section 129 of the Act will become illegal and thus prayed that same be interdicted.

4. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Thushara James, submitted that the proceedings initiated through Ext.P6 is under Section 122(1)(2) of the Act; while the proceedings, which is assailed by the petitioner, is under Section 129 thereof. She says that, therefore, when Ext.P6 only requires the petitioner to appear before the competent Authority on 12.08.2021, there is no reason for them to have rushed to this Court. She added that, in any event of the matter, any further action under Section 129 of the Act will be initiated only after the petitioner is properly notified, pursuant to completion of the proceedings under Ext.P6.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client is more concerned about the action proposed under Section 129 of the Act particularly because Ext.P5 explanation clearly shows that the vehicle in question had no consignment loaded onto it. He, however, submitted that his client is willing to appear before the competent Authority pursuant to Ext.P6; but prayed that said Authority be directed to issue the proceedings culminating there from, before initiating any action under Section 129 of the Act.

6. I find that the stage of interference by this Court in any of the matters, which are in controversy, has not yet commenced because, as rightly stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader, Ext.P6 is only a notice under Section 122(1)(2) of the Act. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner must submit themselves to the enquiry being conducted by the competent Authority, for which purpose, they have been asked to appear at 11 a.m. on 12.08.2021. I do not propose to interdict the same, but only that sufficient safeguards be fixed, so that the petitioner’s apprehensions may be allayed. In the afore circumstances, I direct the petitioner to comply with Ext.P6; with a further direction to the respondents to ensure that before any further action under Section 129 of the Act is initiated against the petitioner, they will be properly notified and their explanation made in Ext.P5 specifically adverted to – particularly that, in the case of a vehicle without any consignment on it, said provision will not apply.

This writ petition is thus ordered.