1. Draft amendment as sought for is granted. The same shall be treated as part of the petition.

2. The petitioner, by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has sought the following prayer :-

“(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the action of detention of conveyance and goods u/s. 129 as also notice of confiscation u/s. 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with relevant provisions of Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and contrary to the provision of the law;”

After the amendment, following paragraph is added :-

“(aa) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order of confiscation of goods and conveyance and demand of tax, fine and penalty dated 04.08.2021 issued in purported exercise of powers u/s 130 as illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and contrary to the provision of the law;”

3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned Advocate Mr. Premal R. Joshi for the petitioner and having regard to the contents of the petition, it appears that the respondent authority vide its order dated 04.08.2021 passed under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as CGST Act) has determined the taxes payable by the petitioner alongwith the penalty and fine and confiscated the goods and conveyance under Section 130 of the CGST Act.

4. Though the learned Advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the order is passed by the respondent on presumptions and surmises, and merely relying on the statement of the driver, the said submission cannot be accepted. It transpires from the documents on record that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing by issuing a showcause notice, but the same was not responded to by the petitioner. Now, since a final order has been passed under Section 130 of the CGST Act, the proper course would be to file an Appeal as provided for under the Statute. As there is an alternative equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petition is dismissed accordingly. It is clarified that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case.