ORDER :

1. The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. DL 01 GC 6192, is aggrieved by the confiscation order dated 17.04.2021 (Annexure-D) under Section 130 of the KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, 'KGST Act/CGST Act']/ Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 [for short, 'IGST Act']/Section 11 of the Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 [for short, 'GST Act']. The petitioner has also called in question the provisions of Sections 129 and 130 of the KGST/CGST Act.

2. Sri. Govindraya Kamath K., the learned counsel for the petitioner, is categorical that the petitioner would not pursue the petition insofar as the challenge to the statutory provisions but the petitioner's grievance as against the initiation of proceedings and the confiscation order dated 17.04.2021 under Section 130 of the KGST Act/CGST Act/ Section 20 of the IGST Act/Section 11 of the GST Act must be examined by this Court in the light of the petitioner's categorical case that there is no connivance with the transporter in the alleged tax evasion and as such, the subject vehicle cannot be confiscated.

3. Sri. Govindraya Kamath K. submits that the fifth respondent caused notice on 08.11.2020 to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 130 of the GST/KGST Act alleging that the petitioner had connived with the transporter to avoid tax. The fifth respondent issued Revised Show Cause Notice on 04.03.2021, and the petitioner responded to this Revised Show Cause Notice on 19.03.2021 requesting for release of the subject vehicle specifically stating that petitioner was not guilty of tax evasion.

4. Sri. Govindraya Kamath K. further submits that the fifth respondent has issued the impugned order on 17.04.2021 without considering the petitioner's case that he had not connived with the transporter or any other person. As such, the petitioner filed an application for rectification on 10.10.2022 (Annexure-E) along with an affidavit by a Director of the petitioner clearly spelling out that there cannot be any allegation of connivance because, as a matter of policy, every transporter to whom the vehicles are hired is insisted upon arranging prescribed documents, and if it is true that the goods are carried in the subject vehicle without complete documentation, the petitioner was not aware of the same. This application has not been considered.

5. As against these submissions, Sri. K.Hemakumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the petitioner, who is enjoined in law to discharge the burden of showing that there is no connivance, has filed a perfunctory affidavit only stating that it is the owner of the subject vehicle. This would be a very general statement, and general statements will not help the petitioner in discharging the burden of showing that there is no connivance.

6. On perusal of the records, Sri. K. Hemakumar is called upon to respond as to whether there must be a further enquiry with due opportunity to the petitioner as in very similar circumstances, this Court has called upon the concerned respondent to extend due opportunity by way of personal hearing and decide on the question of connivance. Sri. K. Hemakumar submits that the fifth respondent could be directed to extend an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or its duly authorized representative but observing that the fifth respondent shall be at liberty to consider not just the circumstances placed on record by the petitioner but also any deliberate attempt to withhold the information. Sri. K.Hemakumar submits that deliberate failure could be one of the circumstances that could be held against the petitioner while deciding on the question of co