ORDER

JUDGMENT

Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trupesh Kathiria waives services of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent- State.

2. By these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order under section 129 of the Central/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (For short “the GST Act”) in Form GST MOV-06 and show cause notice under section 130 of the GST Act in Form GST MOV-10 and further prayed for release of the goods and conveyance detained by the respondent authorities.

3. The petitioners in the alternative have also prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.10.2021 of the respondent authorities denying the provisional release of the goods and conveyance under section 67(6)/129(2) of the GST Act even if goods and vehicles are seized in transit.

4. As these matters are to be disposed of on limited issue of alternative prayers made by the petitioners keeping the right of the petitioners open to challenge such order passed in Form MOV-11 under section 130 of the GST Act, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petitions were taken up for hearing to consider the issue as to whether during the pendency of the proceedings, the authority can exercise powers under section 67(6) and/or section 129(2) of the GST Act for provisional release of the goods and conveyance or not.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioners submitted that it is not in dispute that the goods and conveyance were accompanied by valid documents i.e. tax invoice and e-way bill and even then the goods were seized and notice for confiscation under Section 130 of the GST Act was issued on ground of alleged irregularities in the transactions of upstream vendors.

6. It was submitted that when the writ applicant applied for provisional release of goods under Section 67(6) of the GST Act pending confiscation proceedings, such application was rejected by impugned letter dated 11.10.2021 on the ground that such release is not possible once the proceedings are initiated under Section 130 of the GST Act.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that Section 130 of the GST Act is a substantive provision providing for the circumstances in which goods shall be liable for confiscation and does not contain any provision for seizure of the goods.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that there are only two statutory provisions which empower the authorities to seize the goods. While Section 67(2) of the GST Act provides for seizure of goods liable for confiscation, Section 129(1) of the GST Act provides for seizure of goods in transit if movement of goods is in contravention of the provisions of the GST Act. Both such provisions provide for specific mechanism for release of seized goods.

9. It was submitted that Section 67(6) of the GST Act provides for provisional release of goods either on furnishing prescribed security along with bond or on payment of tax and penalty whereas Section 129(2) of the GST Acts (as it existed during the period in question) provides that the provisions of Section 67(6) of the GST Acts shall mutatis mutandis apply to seizure of goods under Section 129(1) of the GST Act. Thus the contention that there is no power available to release seized goods liable for confiscation is contrary to clear statutory provisions.

10.  Learned advocate Mr. Sheth further submitted that for confiscation, goods necessarily have to be seized by the authority and once the goods are seized and if released on certain terms and conditions, then also confiscation is permissible. In support of such submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in (2000) 1 SCC 565.

11. It was further submitted that if goods are never seized then there cannot be confiscation. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v/s Finesse Creation Inc 2009 SCC Online Bom 2269 and decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v/s Raja Impex (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 SCC Online P&H 2180.

12. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth further submitted that once it is alleged that goods are liable for confiscation and notice in Form GST MOV-10 is issued, seizure of such goods is under Section 67(2) of the GST Act and if that be so, then plain language of Section 67(6) of the GST Act requires the authority to release the goods provisionally.

13. It was further submitted that Section 130 of the GST Act is the only statutory provision providing for confiscation of goods, whether goods are lying at the premises of the taxable persons or whether they are in transit and it is not disputed by the authorities that if goods seized at the premises of the taxable person which are liable for confiscation under Section 130 of the GST Act, then provisional release is permissible under Section 67(6) of the GST Act and if that be so and if there is a single provision for confiscation of goods, then it absolutely defies logic for the authorities to contend that provisional release is not permissible for goods seized during transit even though the provision under which they are allegedly liable for confiscation remains the same under section 130 of the GST Act.

14. It was submitted that such discriminatory policy based on the place from where goods are seized could never have been contemplated by the legislature and it is in fact contrary to the provisions and scheme of the GST Act.

15. Learned advocate Mr.Sheth further submitted that section 67(6) of the GST Act provides that the goods seized under subsection (2) “shall” be released, on a provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security, in such manner and of such quantum, respectively, as may be prescribed or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, as the case may be and therefore, if the taxable person is ready to either execute bond and furnish security in the prescribed manner or make payment of tax, interest and penalty, then it is mandatory for the authority to provisionally release the goods.

16. It was further submitted that it is well settled that use of the word “shall” ordinarily indicates that the provision is mandatory in nature. In support of such submission, reliance was placed on the following decisions :

(a) State of Haryana v/s Raghubir Dayal reported in (1995) 1 SCC 133.

(b) Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s State of U.P and Others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 354.

(c) ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v/s Commercial Tax Officer reported in (2019) 13 SCC 225.

17. It was further submitted that insofar as Section 67(6) of the GST Act is concerned, the same has to be interpreted as a mandatory provision. It was submitted that confiscation proceedings are long drawn proceedings and even if the original authority decides the issue, there are four statutory appeals available to the assessee as well as the revenue and the amount of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is also discretionary with the maximum amount being equal to the value of the goods.

18. It was further submitted that the legislature could not have intended that the goods remain unused in the custody of the department during the pendency of this entire process. It was submitted that with the use of the word “shall”, the issue is set at rest beyond doubt and therefore, release under Section 67(6) is mandatorily required to be granted by the authority if the taxable person is ready to abide by the conditions as imposed by the section itself.

19. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth further submitted that Section 67(6) of the GST Act itself provides for the conditions of provisional release wherein two options are available namely, (a) Execution of bond and furnishing of security of such quantum as may be prescribed and (b) On payment of tax, interest and penalty. It was submitted that insofar as the first option is concerned, the prescription of bond and security is under Rule 140(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short ‘GST Rules’).

20. It was therefore, submitted that the bond is to be executed in Form GST INS-04 and security is to be given in the form of bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax, interest and penalty if the first option is availed by the taxable person under Section 67(6). It was submitted that the second option is of payment of tax, interest and penalty and thus these are the statutory terms of provisional release and the authority does not have any discretion to alter such terms. It was submitted that if either of the options are exercised by the taxable person then the authority is bound to provisionally release the goods under Section 67(6) of the GST Act.

21. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth further submitted that once the goods are seized and if the taxable person applies for availing provisional release under Section 67(6), then the authority is required to forthwith allow such provisional release provided the taxable person immediately complies with the conditions for availing such release and the statutory right of obtaining provisional release cannot be frustrated by the authority by not adjudicating the provisional release application and instead proceeding to pass final confiscation order.

22. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that when the petitioners applied for provisional release under Section 67(6) of the GST Act by letter dated 30.9.2021, the same was rejected by the respondent no.2 by impugned letter dated 11.10.2021 and instead the seized goods along with conveyance ought to have been released provisionally under Section 67(6) of the GST Act either on the basis of payment of tax, interest and penalty or on the basis of bond plus bank guarantee as the petitioners are ready and willing to immediately deposit tax, interest and penalty for securing provisional release of goods.

23. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth for the petitioners submitted that issue is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners and relied upon the following decisions wherein in similar facts, this Court has permitted the provisional release of goods under section1 167(6) of the GST Act :

1) Shri Anant Jignesh Shah, proprietor of M/s. Nakoda and Company v. The Union of India through the Under Secretary and others (order dated 6.11.2020 passed in Special Civil No.12712/2020).

2) Makwana Enterprises v. State of Gujarat and others (Order dated 29.10.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.13407/2021).

3) Shiv Shakti Textiles v. State of Gujarat and another (order dated 10.12.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.15870/2020)

4) Majid Bilalbhai Akbani v. State of Gujarat and others (order dated 6.11.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.12754/2020)

5) State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Trading Company reported in (1997) 11 Supreme Court Cases 378.

6) Universal Scrap and Metals v. State of Gujarat (Order dated 26.02.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.5172/2020)

7) Rifty Vinimay Enterprises v. State of Gujarat (order dated 30.01.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.2717/2020)

8) Hariom Traders v. State of Gujarat and others (order dated 21.01.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.1060/2021)

9) Western Enterprises v. State of Gujarat and others (order dated 8.02.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.1368/2021)

10) Western Enterprises v. State of Gujarat and others (order dated 04.03.2021 passed in Misc. Civil Application (For orders) No. 1 of 2021 in Special Civil Application No.1368/2021)

11) A.B. Traders v. State of Gujarat (order dated 24.12.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.18393/2021)

12) Royal Impex v. State of Gujarat (order dated 9.03.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.4904/2022)

24. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Trupesh Kathiria for the respondents submitted that the respondents authorities is yet to adjudicate upon the show cause notice in Form MOV-10 issued under section 130 of the GST Act and therefore, the question of provisional release would not arise on plain reading of section 68 read with section 129 of the GST Act.

25. It was submitted that since supply of goods in these cases is in contravention of the law and is liable to be confiscated as well as to be considered as offences under sections 122(i)(ii)(vii) and (ix) as mentioned in notice in Form GST MOV 10, proceedings under section 130 have been initiated.

26. It was submitted that entire transaction chain of supply is established with intent to evade the taxes and hence invocation of section 130 of the GST Act was justified.

27. It was submitted that on perusal of the provisions of sections 129 and 130 of the GST Act, there is no mention of provisional release in section 130 and hence the request for provisional release was rightly declined by the authority. It was submitted that in view of the orders passed by this Court, further order under MOV 11 is not passed.

28. Having considered the rival submissions of learned advocates for the respective parties, it would be germane to refer to relevant provisions :

“67. Power of inspection, search and seizure

(1) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, has reasons to believe that-

(a) taxable person has suppressed any transaction relating to supply of goods or services or both or the stock of goods in hand, or has claimed input tax credit in excess of his entitlement under this Act or has indulged in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder to evade tax under this Act;

or

(b) any person engaged in the business of transporting goods or an owner or operator of a warehouse or a godown or any other place in keeping goods which have escaped payment of tax or has kept his accounts or goods in such a manner as is likely to cause evasion of tax payable under this Act,

he may authorise in writing any other officer of central tax to inspect any places of business of the taxable person or the persons engaged in the business of transporting goods or the owner or the operator of warehouse or godown or any other place.

(2) Where the proper officer, not below the rank of Joint Commissioner, either pursuant to an inspection carried out under sub-section (1) or otherwise, has reasons to believe that any goods liable to confiscation or any documents or books or things, which in his opinion shall be useful for or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorize in writing any other officer of central tax to search and seize or may himself search and seize such goods, documents or books or things:

Provided that where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, the proper officer, or any officer authorised by him, may serve on the owner or the custodian of the goods an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer:

Provided further that the documents or books or things so seized shall be retained by such officer only for so long as may be necessary for their examination and for any inquiry or proceedings under this Act.

(3) The documents, books or things referred to in sub-section (2) or any other documents, books or things produced by a taxable person or any other person, which have not been relied upon for the issue of notice under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be returned to such person within a period not exceeding thirty days of the issue of the said notice.

(4) The officer authorised under sub-section (2) shall have the power to seal or break open the door of any premises or to break open any almirah, electronic devices, box, receptacle in which any goods, accounts, registers or documents of the person are suspected to be concealed, where access to such premises, almirah, electronic devices, box or receptacle is denied.

(5) The person from whose custody any documents are seized under sub-section (2) shall be entitled to make copies thereof or take extracts therefrom in the presence of an authorised officer at such place and time as such officer may indicate in this behalf except where making such copies or taking such extracts may, in the opinion of the proper officer, prejudicially affect the investigation.

(6) The goods so seized under sub-section (2) shall be released, on a provisional basis, upon execution of a bond and furnishing of a security, in such manner and of such quantum, respectively, as may be prescribed or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, as the case may be.

(7) Where any goods are seized under sub-section (2) and no notice in respect thereof is given within six months of the seizure of the goods, the goods shall be returned to the person from whose possession they were seized:

Provided that the period of six months may, on sufficient cause being shown, be extended by the proper officer for a further period not exceeding six months.

(8) The Government may, having regard to the perishable or hazardous nature of any goods, depreciation in the value of the goods with the passage of time, constraints of storage space for the goods or any other relevant considerations, by notification, specify the goods or class of goods which shall, as soon as may be after its seizure under sub-section (2), be disposed of by the proper officer in such manner as may be prescribed.

(9) Where any goods, being goods specified under sub-section (8), have been seized by a proper officer, or any officer authorised by him under subsection (2), he shall prepare an inventory of such goods in such manner as may be prescribed.

(10) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relating to search and seizure, shall, so far as may be, apply to search and seizure under this section subject to the modification that sub-section (5) of section 165 of the said Code shall have effect as if for the word “Magistrate”, wherever it occurs, the word “Commissioner” were substituted.

(11) Where the proper officer has reasons to believe that any person has evaded or is attempting to evade the payment of any tax, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize the accounts, registers or documents of such person produced before him and shall grant a receipt for the same, and shall retain the same for so long as may be necessary in connection with any proceedings under this Act or the rules made thereunder for prosecution.

(12) The Commissioner or an officer authorised by him may cause purchase of any goods or services or both by any person authorised by him from the business premises of any taxable person, to check the issue of tax invoices or bills of supply by such taxable person, and on return of goods so purchased by such officer, such taxable person or any person in charge of the business premises shall refund the amount so paid towards the goods after cancelling any tax invoice or bill of supply issued earlier.

129. Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit (AS it existed prior to amendment)

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in trasit in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released.

(a) on payment of penalty equal to two hundred per cent of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such penalty,

d) on payment of penalty equal to fifty per cent of the value of the goods or two hundred per cent of the tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, and in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such penalty.

(c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

PROVIDED that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.

(2) The provisions of sub-section (6) of section 67 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply for detention and seizure of goods and conveyances

(3) The proper officer detaining or seizing the goods or conveyance shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable, and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause(a) or clause(b) of sub-section(1).

(4) No penalty shall be determined under sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard

(5) On payment of amount referred in sub-section (1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in subsection (3) shall be deemed to be concluded

(6) Where the person transporting any goods or the owner of such goods fails to pay the amount of penalty under subsection (1) within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed under sub-section(3)the goods or conveyance so detained or seized shall be liable to be sold or disposed of otherwise, in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed to recover the penalty payable under sub-section (3).

PROVIDED that the conveyance shall be released on payment by the transporter of penalty under sub-section (3) or one lakh rupees, whichever is less PROVIDED FURTHER that where the detained or seized goods are perishable or hazardous in nature or are likely to depreciate the value with passage of time, the said period of fifteen days may be reduced by the proper officer.

130. Confiscation of goods or conveyances and levy of penalty

(AS it existed prior to amendment)

(1) [Where] any person-

(i) supplies or receives any goods in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax; or

(ii) does not account for any goods on which he is liable to pay tax under this Act; or

(iii) supplies any goods liable to tax under this Act without having applied for registration; or

(iv) contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made  thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax; or

(v) uses any conveyance as a means of transport for carriage of goods in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person in charge of the conveyance, then, all such goods or conveyances shall be liable to confiscation and the person shall be liable to penalty under section 122.

(2) Whenever confiscation of any goods or conveyance is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it shall give to the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fine as the said officer thinks fit:

PROVIDED that such fine leviable shall not exceed the market value of the goods confiscated, less the tax chargeable thereon:

PROVIDED FURTHER that the aggregate of such fine and penalty leviable shall not be less than the ‘[penalty equal to hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods]:

PROVIDED ALSO that where any such conveyance is used for the carriage of the goods or passengers for hire, the owner of the conveyance shall be given an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the conveyance a fine equal to the tax payable on the goods being transported thereon.

(3) Where any fine in lieu of confiscation of goods or conveyance is imposed under sub-section (2), the owner of such goods or conveyance or the person referred to in sub-section (1), shall, in addition, be liable to any tax, penalty and charges payable in respect of such goods or conveyance.]

(4) No order for confiscation of goods or conveyance or for imposition of penalty shall be issued without giving the person an opportunity of being heard.

(5) Where any goods or conveyance are confiscated under this Act, the title of such goods or conveyance shall thereupon vest in the Government.

(6) The proper officer adjudging confiscation shall take and hold possession of the things confiscated and every officer of Police, on the requisition of such proper officer, shall assist him in taking and holding such possession.

(7) The proper officer may, after satisfying himself that the confiscated goods or conveyance are not required in any other proceedings under this Act and after giving reasonable time not exceeding three months to pay fine in lieu of confiscation, dispose of such goods or conveyance and deposit the sale proceeds thereof with the Government.”

29. On perusal of above provisions, it transpires that the provisions of section 67 of the GST Act pertains to seizure of the goods whereas section 129 also provides for seizure of goods in transit if goods in transit is in contravention of the provisions of the GST Act.

30. The provisions of Sub-section (6) of section 67 and sub-section (2) of section 129 provides for provisional release. The provision for confiscation of goods as per section 130 of the GST Act has to be preceded by seizure of goods because there cannot be confiscation without seizure.

31. In such circumstances, when the goods are in transit and are to be confiscated they are required to be seized for the purpose of invocation of section 130 of the GST Act. Therefore, in such circumstances, provisions of section 67(2) of the GST Act comes into play and seizure of goods under section 129 then becomes seizure under section 67 of the GST Act so as to confiscate the same under section 130 of the GST Act.

32. Reliance placed on behalf of the petitioners on decision in case of Western Components Ltd. (supra) is applicable in facts of the case in which it is held by the Apex Court that once the goods are seized and then released, confiscation is also permissible but if the goods are not seized then there cannot be any confiscation which is applied by the Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Finesse Creation Inc.(supra) and Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Raja Impex(P). Ltd. (supra).

33. In view of above analysis, once the notice in Form MOV-10 under section 130 for confiscation of goods is issued, the goods in question stand seized under section 67(2) of the GST Act, applicability of section 129 of the GST Act comes to an end.

34. In such circumstances, the respondent authorities are required to exercise powers to release goods and conveyance as provided in sub-section(6) of section 67. It is immaterial whether for the purpose of confiscation, goods are seized at the premises or in transit. Section 130 of the GST Act is the only statutory provision providing for confiscation of goods irrespective of the fact that the goods are lying in the premises of the taxable person or whether the goods are in transit. Therefore, in order to proceed further under section 130 of the GST Act, the goods have to be under seizure of the authority. Under such circumstances, provisional release is permissible under section 67(6) of the GST Act.

35. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents authorities that they have no power for provisional release of the goods in transit though same are subjected to confiscation under section 130, is not tenable. The provisions of the GST Act are unambiguous and clear. Section 129 of the GST Act deals with seizure of goods in transit only for the purpose of verification during movement of goods which are not in accordance with the provisions of the GST Act and the GST Rules whereas section 130 provides for confiscation of goods which are seized either under section 67 or under section 129 of the GST Act. The provision of Section 129 would not operate once the show cause notice under section 130 in Form MOV 10 is issued by the GST authority. The issue with regard to whether GST authority can issue show cause notice under section 130 while goods are under seizure under section 129 of the GST Act is at large pending for adjudication. However, in the facts of the present cases goods are under the seizure, subject to final determination as to whether same is liable to be confiscated under section 130 of the GST Act or not before the respondent authority. Therefore, once the goods are under seizure the same would have to be treated as to be seized under section 67(2) of the GST Act, as section 129 of the GST Act would not operate after issuance of show cause notice under section 130 of the GST Act.

36. In view of above, once the goods are to be treated as seized under section 67(2) of the GST Act, the same would be liable to be provisionally released under section 67(6) of the GST Act by the GST authority either upon execution of bond and furnishing of security in such manner and of such quantum as may be prescribed or on payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty payable, as the case may be. Therefore, as the petitioners are ready to either execute a bond and furnish the security in prescribed manner and/or make payment of applicable tax, interest and penalty, the respondents authorities were not justified in denying the provisional release of the goods and conveyance as it is mandatory for the authority to exercise powers under section 67 (6) of the GST Act for provisional release of the goods and conveyance as there is mandate by word “shall” provided under section 67(6) of the GST Act. The word “shall” ordinarily indicates that the provision is mandatory in nature and therefore, reliance placed by the petitioner in case of State of Haryana v. Raghubir Dayal reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 133, Delhi Airtech Services Private Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others reported in (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 354 and in case of ALD Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer reported in (2019) 12 Supreme Court Cases 225 would be applicable in facts of the case.

37. In view of the foregoing reasons, the respondents authorities are required to release the goods on provisional basis in exercise of powers under section 67(6) of the Act once the show cause notice under section 130 of the GST Act for confiscation of the goods and conveyance is issued irrespective of whether goods are seized at the place of the taxable person or during the course of transit as the same would not make any difference for exercise of powers for confiscation of goods under section 130 of the GST Act.

38. It is also required to be noted that as per the scheme of the GST Act, against the order passed under section 130, appeal is provided under section 107 of the GST Act and therefore, the provisional release of the goods by executing bond and or recovery of the tax, penalty and interest payable by tax payer or person interested in release of such goods would be subjected to further proceedings as provided under the provisions of the GST Act. The intention of the legislature cannot be to keep the goods and conveyance unused till the adjudication and further appeal is decided by the competent authority under the provisions of the GST Act. The respondents authorities are accordingly directed to provisionally release the goods and conveyance in question in all these petitions on execution of bond of value of goods and on payment of tax, interest and penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

39. The petitions are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction permitting the authorities to provisionally release the goods on aforesaid conditions by applying the provisions of section 67(6) of the GST Act subject to adjudication of the show cause notice issued under section 130 in Form MOV 10 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in accordance with law.

40. The petitions are accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.