JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Bhatia, J.

1. Since the controversy and facts involved in the aforesaid connected writ petitions are the same, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by a common order with the consent of the parties.

2. We had heard Sri Vinod Kumar Upadhyay, Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Ritvik Upadhyay in Writ Tax Nos. 619 of 2018 and 618 of 2018 and Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Tax Nos. 659 of 2018 and 1528 of 2018 and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Tax No. 619 of 2018 are being adverted to.

4. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the entire search and seizure operation carried out by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 13th and 14th March, 2018 at the factory premises of the petitioner-company situate at Sumerpur, District Hamirpur, Uttar Pradesh as being illegal, arbitrary against the mandatory provisions of law and as a colourable and mala fide exercise of statutory powers.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner challenged the confiscation order passed on 29.10.2018 under Section 130(2) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act which was served upon the petitioner on 22.11.2018 by means of the amendment application and prayed for the following relief:

(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned Confiscation Order dated 29.10.2018 (Annexure-10 to this writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, S.I.B. Range-A, Commercial Tax/UPGST, Kanpur, under Section 130(2) of the Act.

6. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows.

7. On 13.3.2018, at about 11.30 A.M. a search party, consisting of the Officers of U.P. GST/Commercial Tax Department, lead by respondent No. 3, started a search at the office premises of the petitioner-company situate at 123/360, Fazalganj, Kanpur and at the factory premises of the petitioner-company situate at B-22-23, Industrial Area, Bharua, Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. Simultaneously, the said search operations were monitored by respondent No. 3, who was present in the office of the petitioner-company at Fazalganj, Kanpur. It has further been alleged that the authorized signatory of the petitioner-company Sri Sunil Gupta was not present at the time of search, however, he was called and was manhandled and pressurized to admit large scale tax evasion. It is alleged that he was asked to sign on some blank papers on 13.3.2018, which were used for drawing the Panchnama on 14.3.2018. The signature of Sri Sunil Gupta, on blank papers, was used by exercising duress, thus, the said Panchnama has no legal sanctity. It has been further stated that the stocks of the raw-materials as well as finished goods were not weighed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 despite the insistence of Sri Sunil Gupta. The search party was informed that the raw-materials were duly covered by the tax invoices and E-way bills and they were fully reflected in the books of accounts. It is further alleged that in the factory premises the computerized weigh bridge is installed, however, the respondents did not weigh the raw-materials as well as the finished products and recorded highly exaggerated figures on the basis of assumptions in the Panchnama. It has been alleged that the list attached to the Panchanama is based on mere physical verification and eye estimation and the entries recorded therein are arbitrary. It has been further alleged that the two witnesses of the search, namely, Sri G.C. Sharma S/o Late Tarkesh Sharma, resident of 117/K/29, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur and Sri Ankur Bhatt S/o Sri S.L. Bhatt, resident of 119/421, darshanpurva, Kanpur were brought by the search party from Kanpur as the addresses of the said witnesses recorded in the Panchnama itself shows. The said two persons are fake persons as they are not resident on the addresses mentioned i