Seizure orders under transit GST provisions may be outside appeal, leaving writ review and interim release available.

An order seizing goods in transit under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act is treated as excluded from the statutory appeal mechanism, because the appeal provision does not extend to seizure or retention matters. In that setting, writ jurisdiction remains available, subject to ordinary limits of judicial review. The article also notes that where seizure is based on disputed factual conclusions drawn without hearing the affected party, interim protection may be justified. On those facts, release of the goods and vehicle may be granted against indemnity bond and security, pending further affidavit and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order of seizure of goods in transit under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is appealable, and whether a writ petition is maintainable against it; (ii) Whether the seizure, based on disputed factual findings recorded without hearing, warranted interim release of the goods and vehicle.

Issue (i): Whether an order of seizure of goods in transit under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 is appealable, and whether a writ petition is maintainable against it.

Analysis: Section 107 provides for an appeal against orders passed under the Act, but Section 121 specifically excludes certain matters from appeal, including orders pertaining to seizure or retention. An order passed under Section 129(1) relating to seizure falls within that exclusion and, therefore, is not carried in appeal. As the statutory appellate remedy is unavailable for such an order, recourse to writ jurisdiction remains open, subject to the limits of judicial review.

Conclusion: The seizure order under Section 129(1) is not appealable and the writ petition is maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure, based on disputed factual findings recorded without hearing, warranted interim release of the goods and vehicle.

Analysis: The seizure was founded on the authorities' view that the goods had originated from New Delhi and on loose papers recovered from the vehicle, despite the accompanying invoice and transport documents indicating movement from Ghaziabad. The finding for seizure was thus based on disputed facts and amounted, prima facie, to adjudication affecting rights without hearing the affected party. In that situation, the matter required consideration, and interim protection was justified pending a counter affidavit and further hearing.

Conclusion: Interim release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing indemnity bond and security was granted.

Final Conclusion: The Court recognised the absence of an appellate remedy against the seizure order and permitted writ scrutiny, while granting interim relief and directing further proceedings on the disputed seizure action.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute excludes an order of seizure from appeal, writ jurisdiction is available; and a seizure founded on disputed facts cannot be sustained without affording an opportunity of hearing.

---