Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional C.S.C. for the opposite party Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Dr. Deepti Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of seizure under Section 129(1) as well as imposition of tax and penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘’U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017').

3. A preliminary objection was raised by Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the ground of availability of a statutory remedy of appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Grade II (Appeal) under Section 107 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, however, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner responded by submitting that the very basis for the impugned action i.e. Rule 138 of U.P.G.S.T. Rules 2017 and the notification issued by the State Government thereunder as also Section 129 of U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 was apparently inapplicable, therefore, the preliminary objection is not tenable.

4. The facts of the case in brief are that 220 pieces of Chocholate Display Cooler of M/s Voltas Ltd. were being transported from Pant Nagar, Rudrapur, Uddham Singh Nagar, State of Uttarakhand to Radiant Enterprises, Megaflex Plastic Ltd., Kolkata, West Bengal, with Tax Invoice No. 117351003728, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 and 2 to the writ petition. It is said that Integrated Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred as ‘’I.G.S.T.’) at the rate of 28% was duly paid on the said inter-state supply of goods. During the course of movement of these goods through the State of U.P. the consignment was intercepted at Lucknow on 17.12.2017 and the goods as well as documents were checked, whereupon, a T.D.F. Form was presented, which, on examination, was found to be related to another vehicle and another transportation pertaining to different goods. Accordingly, the truck alongwith the goods was seized on the same date, as, it was not carrying genuine and original T.D.F. Form. Proceedings under Section 129 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 were undertaken against the truck-driver Mohammad Alamgir i.e. petitioner No. 2. After issuance of notice of seizure on 17.12.2017 a show-cause notice under Section 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017 was issued to the truck-driver on the same date. A reply to the said notice was submitted by the Transporter M/s T.V.S. Logistics Service Pvt. Ltd. on 3.1.2018, thereafter, an order under Section 129(3) for payment of tax and penalty under clause (b) of Section 129(1) was passed by the proper officer.

5. The contention of Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioner No. 1 was retained by M/s T.V.S. Logistics Service Pvt. Ltd. for transporting the goods in question, when the aforesaid incident occurred. The contention was that the transaction was one of inter-State supply of goods, therefore, it was covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘’I.G.S.T. Act 2017') and as per Section 20 (xv) thereof, in matters of inspection, search, seizure and arrest, provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred ‘’C.G.S.T. Act 2017') were applicable. As per Section 68 of the C.G.S.T. Act 2017, inter alia, Government may require, the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified, to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. This prescription is contained in Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 (hereinafter referred as ‘’C.G.S.T. Rules 2017'), but, no notification had been issued by the Central Government under the said rule specifying the documents that a person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consig