Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit — The petitioner challenged the order of detention and submitted that no reason has been assigned for seizure of the goods and the reason assigned is that the purchaser firm was not in existence and it was a fake sale and invoice. The notice under Section 129 was issued in the name of the driver. The petitioner contended that once he put forth his claim being owner of the seized goods, all proceedings under Section 129 are required to be conducted after giving due notice or opportunity to the petitioner. The court observed that the dispute pertaining to validity of the seizure order cannot be seen at this stage and moreover, the remedy before the petitioner is to approach the competent authority by moving a proper application giving details of his name about the ownership of the goods in question.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the petitioner shall approach the competent officer putting forth his claim of being owner of the seized good by a moving proper application. In case, such an application filed before the competent officer, he shall duly deal with the same and grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by giving a proper notice in accordance with law.