Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4- Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad, Unit-10, Kanpur, whereby, in proceeding under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, evasion of tax was found and tax and penalty was imposed and the vehicle and the goods were seized. Further challenge is to the appellate order dated 6.10.2021, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad, Unit- 10, Kanpur was upheld.

The matter requires consideration.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to file a counter affidavit.

Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks, thereafter.

List immediately thereafter.

With regard to interim relief, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded in the original order cannot be sustained inasmuch as the e-way bill that was generated was in terms of sub-rule (10) of Rule 138 of the GST Rules and the e-way bill was valid at the time of interception. It is contended that, therefore, since the goods are perishable in nature therefore, under Rule 140 of the GST Rules after obtaining the security, the goods may be released.

Learned Standing Counsel has, however, opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has referred extensively to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad and has stated that for the purpose of release of goods seized that are perishable in nature, it is Rule 141 that will apply and not Rule 140.

Having considered the rival submissions, it is provided that in case the petitioner pays the amount in terms of Rule 141 of the CGST Rules, 2017 to the authorities concerned, the goods shall be released forthwith.