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 ad-interim 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.