Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Commercial Tax Department and Sri R.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4.

The petitioner is a purchasing dealer duly registered under the Goods and Services Tax. The goods (betel nuts) in transit have been seized for the reason that the respondents, on verification, have come to know that the petitioner as well as the selling dealer are non-existent.

The respondents are not alleging that the registration of the petitioner or the selling dealer is fictitious or that it has been cancelled or revoked.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the fact that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of proposed tax and penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 still the goods are not being released.

It appears from the documents produced by the respondents especially Sri R.C. Shukla, counsel for the respondent no. 4 that the goods have not been released as the respondent no. 4 has issued directions to the respondent no. 3 not to release the goods and not to give the same in custody of the Custom Department. Ex-facie we find that the respondent no. 4 has no authority in law to dictate respondent no. 3 in such a manner. Issuance of such direction by respondent no. 4 is blatantly illegal and without any authority of law.

The Custom Department has not passed any order of detention/confiscation of the said goods under the Customs Act.

In view of the facts and circumstances, we direct the respondents to release the goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner forthwith and report about the compliance within three days on affidavit.

Put up on 18.12.2018 in the additional cause list, on which date, Superintendent, Customs (Preventive) Division, Commissionerate, 5th and 11th Floor, Kendriya Bhawan, Sector-H, Aliganj, Lucknow (respondent no. 4) shall appear in person before this Court.