1. By these petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the common orderin- original dated 1st November, 2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Vadodara-II (hereinafter referred to as the “adjudicating authority”) whereby, he has ordered confiscation of the vehicles which are subject matter of the petitions and given the petitioners an option of redemption on payment of redemption fine as stipulated in the impugned order.

2. Heard Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent.

3. Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent, has at the outset raised a preliminary contention as regards the maintainability of the present petitions on the ground that against the impugned order in original, the petitioners have a remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise. It was submitted that in view of the fact that against the impugned order-inoriginal passed by the adjudicating authority, the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”), the present petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable.

4. On the other hand, Mr. P.P. Majumdar, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order is an unreasoned order and is without jurisdiction and hence, the present petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India are maintainable. He has accordingly urged that the petitions be entertained and be heard and decided on merits.

4.1 In support of his submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioners placed reliance upon an unreported decision of this court in the case of India Logistics and Cargo Movers v. The State of Gujarat rendered on 24th September, 2019 in Special Civil Application No.15178 of 2019, wherein the court, in the facts of the said case found that the impugned order was totally bereft of any reasons and held that in the absence of any reasons being assigned for confiscation of the goods and the conveyance in question, the impugned order stands vitiated due to non-application of mind on the part of the maker of the order. It was submitted that in the facts of the present cases also, the adjudicating authority has not assigned any reasons as to why the conveyances in question are required to be confiscated.

5. Since a preliminary question as regards the maintainability of the petitions has arisen, it is necessary for the petitioners to first cross this hurdle before the petitions can be heard on merits. In this case, a perusal of the impugned order-in-original reveals that the same has been passed under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. It is not the contention of the petitioners that the adjudicating authority lacks the jurisdiction to decide the matter. The only contention is that the impugned order is an unreasoned order and is in breach of the principles of natural justice.

6. Insofar as the contention that the impugned order is in breach of the principles of natural justice is concerned, a perusal of the show cause notice shows that summons were issued to the owners of the three Eicher trucks which were seized during the search at the available addresses in the RTO registration documents seized under a panchnama dated 17.1.2019. However, the summonses were returned undelivered. It further emerges that pursuant to the application made by the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Vadodara for release of their vehicles, summons were issued to them at the addresses mentioned in the applications. In the impugned order the adjudicating authority has recorded that the petitioners had appeared for personal hearing and requested to release their vehicles and has stated that they have nothing more to add. Thus, when the petitioners were served with the show cause notice and were provided an opportunity of hearing, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from breach of the principles of natural justice.

7. As regards the contention that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, having regard to the contents of the impugned order in original, it is not possible to state that the same is a non-speaking order. The decision of this court in the case of India Logistics and Cargo Movers v. The State of Gujarat (supra), therefore, does not in any manner support the case of petitioners.

8. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603, has held thus:

“5. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, AIR 1964 SCC 1419, Titaghur Paper Mills case, (1983) 2 SCC 433 and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).”

9. In the light of the above settled legal position, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), this court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the absence of existence of any factor set out in the above decision for entertaining a writ petition against an order of the adjudicating authority.

10. It is, however, clarified that this court has not examined the impugned order on merits and in case the petitioners challenge the impugned order-in-original before the appellate authority, the appellate authority shall consider the same on merits without being in any manner influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

11. The petitions are accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. Notices are discharged with no order as to costs.