https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409935 The court held that the petitioner, challenging the seizure of Arecanut under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, must exhaust the appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Act before approaching the court. The court emphasized that the appeal provision covers seizures of documents, not goods like Arecanut. As such, the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the opportunity to appeal before the competent authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act within three months of the decision. en-us Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409935 The court held that the petitioner, challenging the seizure of Arecanut under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, must exhaust the appeal remedy under Section 107 of the Act before approaching the court. The court emphasized that the appeal provision covers seizures of documents, not goods like Arecanut. As such, the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the opportunity to appeal before the competent authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act within three months of the decision. Case-Laws GST Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409935