1 By way of this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“A. This Hon’ble Court may 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 respondents to forthwith release truck number MH18BG3887.
B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside the impugned notice qua confiscation of conveyance (annexed at Annexure A).
B1. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned confiscation order annexed at Annexure D.
C. Pending notice, admission and final hearing of this petition, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the learned respondents to forthwith release truck number MH19BG3887.
D. Ex parte 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 for which act of kindness your petitioner shall forever pray.”
2 We take notice of the order dated 26th September 2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the present matter. The order reads thus:
“1. The learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered a draft amendment. The amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith.
2. Mr. Uchit Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioner, has invited the attention of the court to the impugned order of confiscation made under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with the relevant provisions of the State/Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act / The Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, to point out that in paragraph-2, the authority concerned has only referred to the deficiencies noticed at the time when the vehicle was intercepted and confiscated. It was pointed out that paragraph5 thereof, where reasons are required to be recorded, is totally blank and no finding has been recorded by the authority. The petitioner has not violated any provision of law with a view to evade payment of tax, as envisaged under section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was further pointed out that in paragraph-6, the Officer has confiscated only the goods in question, despite which, in the calculation of tax, the authority has calculated fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance. It was submitted that the impugned order is a totally nonspeaking order and hence, cannot be sustained.
3. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue Notice, returnable on 10.10.2019. By way of adinterim relief, the respondents are directed to forthwith release the Truck No.MH18BG3887, upon the petitioner paying the amount of ₹ 58,576/, as stipulated in the impugned order, as fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance subject to the final outcome of the petition. Direct service is permitted today.”
3 We have heard Mr. Uchit Sheth, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents.
4 Mr. Sheth, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that the final order of conveyance under Section 130 of the Act has been passed and the same is a subject matter of challenge in the present writ application by way of a draft amendment.
5 We are of the view that as, by way of an adinterim relief, the conveyance has already been ordered to be released on paying the amount of ₹ 58,576/- towards fine in lieu of confiscation of the conveyance, the writ applicant should prefer an appeal against such order of confiscation under Section 107 of the Act in accordance with law.
6 We permit the writ applicant to prefer an appropriate appeal within four weeks from today. If any appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall adjudicate the same on its own merits in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits of this case. If, ultimately, the writ applicant succeeds in appeal, he shall be entitled to seek refund of the amount which he has deposited towards fine in lieu of confiscation.
7 With the above, this writ application stands disposed of.