1. Rule. Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case which lies in a very narrow compass, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention dated 15.9.2019 passed by the third respondent under section 129(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’) as well as the show-cause notice dated 15.9.2019 issued by the said respondent under section 130 of the CGST Act.

4. The facts stated briefly are that the petitioner, a proprietory concern is engaged in the business of trading in metal scraps. One Swati Enterprises, Jamnagar, Gujarat placed an order with the petitioner for supply of aluminium and mix scrap amounting to ₹ 45,436/-. The goods were to be delivered from Bhilwara, Rajasthan via Nathdwara, Rajasthan to Jamnagar, Gujarat. The conveyance bearing No.RJ-30-GA-7170 in which the goods of the petitioner were being transported also carried goods of another supplier from Jaipur, Rajasthan, whose goods were also being transported to Jamnagar. While the goods were being transported on the way, the second respondent intercepted the conveyance at Nana Chiloda and carried out inspection of the goods being transported and asked for necessary documents. It is the case of the petitioner that when the goods were being transported from Bhilwara to Nathdwara, the original invoice was there with the goods. However, from Nathdwara, Rajasthan there was a change in the conveyance and in that change, the goods were shifted from one conveyance to the other, but the invoice for the same was inadvertently and erroneously left at the travel agency’s office at Nathdwara where the conveyances were changed.

5. As the driver of the conveyance was not carrying the invoice for the said goods, the 2nd respondent detained the conveyance and confiscated the goods and recorded the statement of the driver of the conveyance in Form GST MOV-01 on 14.9.2019. On the same day, physical verification, inspection of the conveyance of goods and documents was made and the second respondent issued Form GST MOV-02.

6. On the next day on 15.9.2019, the 3rd respondent passed an order of detention under section 129(1) of the CGST Act and simultaneously issued show-cause notice under section 130 of the CGST Act determining tax, penalty and fine at ₹ 3,88,234/-.

7. By a letter dated 18.9.2019, the petitioner informed the second respondent that as the value of the goods was less than ₹ 50,000/-, e-way bill was not required to be generated and the invoice for the said goods was inadvertently and erroneously left at the travel agency’s office where the goods were shifted from one conveyance to the other. The petitioner also requested the second respondent to release the conveyance along with the goods as the petitioner was willing to pay tax and penalty as leviable.

8. Since despite the fact that the petitioner has shown willingness to pay tax on the invoice raised and penalty under section 129 of the CGST Act and the respondent had not released the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the relief noted hereinabove.

9. Initially, Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh, learned advocate for the petitioner had shown some reservation for payment of fine and penalty in terms of the amount stated by the respondent in the impugned notice of confiscation under section 130 of the CGST Act. However, today under instructions, the learned advocate has stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay tax and penalty under protest as computed by the respondent in the notice issued under section 130 of the CGST Act.

10. Having regard to the fact that the proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act are still pending before the second respondent, this court is of the view that interest of justice would be served if the second respondent is directed to forthwith release the goods as well as the conveyance upon the petitioner paying the tax and penalty amounting to ₹ 51,084/- under protest which shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the same in case the same is adverse to the petitioner.

11. This court has also heard Mr. Trupesh Kathiriya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

12. In the above view of the matter, the petition is partly allowed with the following directions. The petitioner shall deposit with the second respondent an amount of ₹ 51,084/- as computed by the said respondent in the impugned notice dated 15.9.2019 issued under section 130 of the CGST Act. Upon the petitioner depositing such amount, the second respondent shall forthwith release the conveyance bearing No.RJ-30-GA-7170 together with the goods of the petitioner. Such amount shall be treated as a deposit which has been made by the petitioner under protest and shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under section 130 of the CGST Act, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge any adverse order, if passed in the said proceedings.

13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Direct service, is permitted.