1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

14(A) be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside detention order dated 31.8.2019 in Form GST Mov6 (annexed at Annexure A) and confiscation notice dated 31.8.2019 in form GST MOV-10 (annexed at Annexure B);

(B) be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the learned respondent authorities to forthwith release truck no.HR737266 along with the goods contained therein without directing any payment of tax and penalty and or security and bond.

(C) pending notice, admission and final hearing of this petition, be pleased to stay operation of the impugned detention/ confiscation orders/ notices (annexed at Annexure A/B) and this Hon’ble Court be pleased to further direct the learned respondent authorities to forthwith release truck no. HR737266 along with the goods contained therein;

(D) exparte ad interim relief in terms of prayer C may kindly be granted;

(E) such further relief(s) as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in the interest of justice;”

2. We take notice of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 19th September 2019, which reads as under:

1. Mr. Varis Isani, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the order of detention under section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CGST Act’) as well as the other provisions of the CGST Act to submit that the requirements of section 68 of the CGST Act are duly satisfied inasmuch as, the person incharge of the conveyance, carrying the consignment of goods, was carrying with him the documents and invoice as described under rule 138(A) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the rules’).

Referring to provisions of section 129 of the CGST Act, it was submitted that the same do not contemplate detention of goods on any ground other than the grounds stated therein and that, undervaluation of an invoice cannot be a ground for detention of goods under section 129 of the CGST Act when all the necessary documents as required under section 68 of the CGST Act read with rule 138(A) of the rules have been furnished.

2. The attention of the court was further invited to the report of valuation of stock of the petitioner as prepared by Value Team Professional (Government registered Valuer) prepared for Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax to point out the basis on which, the market value has been computed by him. It was submitted that based upon such a valuation report, the respondents seek to confiscate the goods of the petitioner.

3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioners and considering the valuation report dated 30.08.2019 which does not inspire any confidence, issue Notice, returnable on 3rd October 2019.

3.1 By way ad interim relief, the respondent authorities are directed to forthwith release truck No. HR737266 along with the goods contained therein. The petitioners, however, shall file an undertaking to the effect that in case, ultimately, they fail in the case, they shall pay the amount of liability under the impugned order.

3.2 Direct service is permitted today.”

3. Thus, in view of the aforesaid interim order passed by this Court, the goods and the truck were ordered to be released and the writ-applicants were asked to file an undertaking to the effect that ultimately if he would fail in the case, he shall pay the amount of liability under the impugned order.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, we are informed that the final order of confiscation in Form MOV-11 has been passed by the concerned authority. However, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicants is not aware of the same.

5. Be that as it may, nothing further is required to be adjudicated in the present writ-application as the writ-application came to be virtually allowed by way of the aforesaid interim order. If the final order of confiscation has been passed, then it shall be open for the writ-applicants to challenge the same by preferring an appeal under Section107 of the Act. At the same time, the authority concerned shall proceed further in terms of the undertaking filed by the writ-applicants subject to any order that may be passed by the appellate authority in appeal that may be filed by the writ-applicant.

6. With the aforesaid, this writ-application stands disposed of.