1 Let rule be issued to the respondents, returnable on 05.09.2019. Ms. Matihili Mehta, the learned AGP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1.

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view that the writ applicant has been able to make out a strong prima facie case to have an interim order in his favour. It appears from the materials on record that the writ applicant is engaged in the trading of agricultural products. The writ applicant is the proprietor of the proprietary concern having place of business at Plot No.25, Market Yard, Taluka: Radhanpur, District: Patan. The writ applicant received an order to deliver goods in the form of cumin (Jiru) at Changod, Ahmedabad. While the truck was in transit, the same was intercepted by the respondent No.2 and was detained. The truck and the goods came to be seized. A notice came to be issued by the respondent No.2 to the writ applicant under Section 130 of the Act, 2017, calling upon the writ applicant to show-cause as to why the conveyance and the goods should not be confiscated. The confiscation proceedings are pending before the respondent No.2.

3. This Court is looking into the larger issues as regards the applicability of Sections 129 and 130 respectively of the Act, 2017. However, taking into consideration the fact that the goods are of perishable nature being the agricultural product and also considering the fact that the writ applicant has deposited an amount of ₹ 83,000/- with the respondent No.2 towards the tax and penalty, as determined, we are inclined to order release of the goods as well as the vehicle. In such circumstances, referred to above, the respondent No.2 is directed to release the vehicle as well as the goods at the earliest.

4. Direct service is permitted.