Prima facie non-appealability of a GST seizure order with interim release of goods on security conditions.

A seizure order under Section 67(2) of the U.P. GST Act was treated, prima facie, as not attracting the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 because it may not be an adjudication order. Pending further proceedings, the Court granted interim protection by directing release of the seized goods on compliance with prescribed security conditions, including deposit or bank guarantee toward the stated GST and fine amounts. The question of maintainability of the appeal was left open for further consideration in the writ proceedings, while the matter remained pending for final disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a seizure order passed under Section 67(2) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was appealable under Section 107 of the Act; (ii) whether interim protection should be granted by directing release of the seized goods on conditions pending further proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a seizure order passed under Section 67(2) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was appealable under Section 107 of the Act.

Analysis: The challenge was directed against a seizure order and the Court recorded a prima facie view that such an order may not be an order of the Adjudicating Officer so as to attract the statutory appeal remedy. On that footing, the writ petition was entertained and heard on merits, leaving the question of maintainability open for further consideration in the writ proceedings.

Conclusion: Prima facie, the statutory appeal under Section 107 was not treated as an available remedy against the seizure order.

Issue (ii): Whether interim protection should be granted by directing release of the seized goods on conditions pending further proceedings.

Analysis: Pending counter affidavit and rejoinder, the Court considered the petitioner's request for protection of its interest during the pendency of the matter. It directed release of the seized goods forthwith upon deposit or furnishing of bank guarantee for the specified amounts towards Central GST, State GST, and the equivalent fine.

Conclusion: Interim release of the seized goods was granted on furnishing of the prescribed bank guarantee.

Final Conclusion: The matter was kept pending for final disposal, while interim relief protecting the petitioner's goods was granted on specified conditions and the availability of the appeal remedy was treated only prima facie.

Ratio Decidendi: A seizure order may not, prima facie, be treated as an appealable adjudication order, and interim release of seized goods can be directed on suitable security pending final adjudication.

---