GST seizure requires recorded reasons and prior Section 129 procedure before confiscation under Section 130.

Seizure of goods in transit could not be sustained where the memo recorded no clear reasons for detention, and later instructions could not cure the absence of reasons in the original order. The High Court applied the principle that an administrative order must stand on the reasons recorded in it, not on post hoc justification. It further held that the GST authorities had to complete the statutory process under Section 129, including notice, valuation, tax determination and hearing, before resorting to confiscation under Section 130. Proceedings under Section 130 were therefore premature until the Section 129 procedure was first exhausted.

---

---

Issues: Whether seizure of goods in transit without legible reasons could be sustained, and whether the authorities were required to proceed first under Section 129 of the GST Act before initiating action under Section 130 of the GST Act.

Analysis: The seizure memo did not disclose clear reasons for detention, and the materials produced did not show that a notice under Section 129(3) of the GST Act had been issued within the statutory timeline. The Court declined to accept later instructions as a substitute for reasons already absent from the seizure order, applying the principle that an administrative order must stand on the reasons recorded in it and cannot be supported by later supplementation. Since the statutory process for notice, valuation, determination of tax, and opportunity of hearing under Section 129 had not been completed, recourse to confiscation proceedings under Section 130 was held to be premature.

Conclusion: The seizure could not be sustained in the manner adopted, the authorities were directed to first follow the procedure under Section 129 of the GST Act, and proceedings under Section 130 of the GST Act were permitted only after completion of that process.

---