Without exhausting the alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court. 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.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit - The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 129(1) of the Act. The 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 and there was no difference in the quantity as per the invoice and the quantity as per the Physical Verification. 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. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court disposed writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority.
Without exhausting the alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court. 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.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit - The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 129(1) of the Act. The 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 and there was no difference in the quantity as per the invoice and the quantity as per the Physical Verification. 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. The respondent counsel submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The court observed that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court disposed writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority.