Point of Law: Whenever confiscation of any goods or conveyance is authorised by this Act, the officer adjudging it shall give to the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fine as the said officer thinks fit.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Aloke Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.P. Singh Kachhawaha, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to release the Vehicle No. HR-55S-1171 [so detained by the order dated 14.10.2020] of the petitioner.

(ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner.”

3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner is the owner of truck bearing Registration No. HR-55S-1171. The petitioner is engaged in the business of leasing trucks and other vehicles on hire/fixed freight basis to various transporting entities. In the course of its business, the petitioner has given on hire the aforesaid truck in question to one M/s Aruna Chaleswara Transport Company (hereinafter referred to as the ‘hirer’) for the purpose of transportation of goods from Delhi to Vijayawada (Andhra Pradesh) for a period of 7-8 days on a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. The hirer loaded the goods for transportation from Delhi on 06.10.2020 for Vijayawada. In the course of journey, the aforesaid truck was passing through the State of Uttar Pradesh when it was intercepted by the respondent no. 2, i.e. Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad) Unit-2, Commercial Tax, Agra, who found that some of the goods loaded in the truck are over and above those covered by invoices, therefore, he issued an order of detention dated 14.10.2020 in MOV-06. Since neither the owner of the goods nor the transporter, i.e. the hirer, came forward to deposit the tax and penalty as demanded by order dated 31.10.2020, the respondent no. 2 initiated proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 for confiscation of the truck in question. In this regard, a notice in GST MOV-10 dated 23.12.2020 was issued to the petitioner fixing the date for hearing on 28.11.2020. Immediately on the receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted an application dated 05.12.2020 before the respondent no. 2 bringing to his notice the entire facts and requested to release the truck. However, in the meantime, the respondent no. 2, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed an order of confiscation dated 29.11.2020 in GST MOV-11.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of confiscation dated 29.11.2020, the petitioner filed First Appeal No. 63 of 2021 before the appellate authority which was dismissed by order dated 28.06.2021. In the meantime, the petitioner also attempted to lodge a first information report on 17.12.2020 against the hirer for using the truck for transportation of certain goods not covered by valid invoice. Since the FIR was not registered by the SHO, Police Station, Alipur, Delhi, therefore, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi through mail on 25.01.2021 and when nothing happened, the petitioner filed an application dated 01.02.2021 in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, District North, Rohini Courts, Delhi under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 525 of 2021.

5. Aggrieved with the order of confiscation dated 29.11.2020 under Section 130 of the CGST Act and the order of the first appellate authority dated 28.06.2021, the petitioner filed Writ Tax No. 650 of 2021 before this Court in which he also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the authorities concerned to release the aforesaid truck detained by order dated 14.10.2020. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed and the orders impugned therein were quashed by this Court by judgment and order dated 15.11.2021. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:

“In the light of the af