JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged order of detention dated 18.03.2021 and the very jurisdiction of respondent No. 2 to proceed in the matter.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that consignment in question (34.120 MT of MS Scrap), belonging to petitioner No. 1, which was being transported by petitioners vide G.R. No. 6411 dated 10.03.2021 of Amritsar Gobindgarh Roadways in Vehicle No. PB 04-V-8310, was having all requisite/prescribed documents while in transit.

3. When the respondent No. 2 intercepted the goods on 11.03.2021 at 02.30 pm, all the documents prescribed under law, such as Invoice No. 194 dated 10.03.2021; G. No. 6411 dated 10.03.2021; E-Way Bill No. 741179867941; Weigh Slip; Tax Invoice No. 183 dated 10.03.2021 of Marwar Steels etc. were furnished, yet he did not allow the petitioner to move.

4. Mr. Sharad Kothari invites Court's attention towards the documents placed on record and highlights that in spite of the fact that the requisite documents were produced before the respondent No. 2 on 11.03.2021 itself, he firstly directed the petitioner No. 2 to remain stationed with the vehicle and goods loaded therein for the purpose of physical verification. He firstly issued notice in MOV-2 and, thereafter on 15.03.2021, got extension to complete inspection from the competent authority, simply with a view to conduct inquiry relating to alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit.

5. It is the argument of the petitioners that such fishing and rowing inquiry in relation to availment of input tax credit and suspicion about the purchase transaction is not within the domain of respondent No. 2, while exercising powers under Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act of 2017') while goods are in movement. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that such inquiry, if at all, is necessary, the same is permissible to be done by regular Assessing Officer and not by the Anti Evasion Officer or any check-post incharge or flying squad.

6. While emphasizing that not only the detention, even the inquiry sought to be undertaken by the respondent No. 2, is without jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioners points out petitioners' predicament that for getting release of vehicle and goods, provisions of Section 129 of the Act of 2017 read with Rules 140 and 141 of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules of 2017') require payment of tax and penalty or furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to the amount of applicable tax and penalty. He argues that in the facts of the present case, if the petitioners are required to pay the proposed amount or to furnish bank guarantee, it would adversely affect business rights of petitioner No. 1 inasmuch as, final amount is yet to be adjudicated and the proposed penalty is to the tune of Rs. 10,74,780/- (50% of the value of goods) apart from tax of Rs. 1,93,460/-.

7. Learned counsel invites Court's attention towards the circular dated 10.04.2018, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and submits that an officer empowered to intercept and inspect a conveyance, is only required to verify prescribed documents and where prima-facie no discrepancies are found, he is required to allow the goods to move further. It is argued by Mr. Kothari that the respondent No. 2 has neither understood the import and purport of the provisions of Sections 68 & 129 of the Act nor has he adhered to the mandate of the circular, which is binding upon him.

8. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners have directly rushed to this Court without even filing reply before the respondent No. 2. It is argued that the petitioners could have applied for release of the goods as provided under Sections 67, 68 and 129(1) of the Act of 2017, instead of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. He further argues that as an efficacious alternative remedy of