ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

[1] By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“23A. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside impugned order in Form GST MOV 11 (annexed at Annexure A) as being wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal;

B. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to forthwith release truck bearing registration number GJ-03BW-9455 along with the goods contained therein;”

[2] The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under:

[2.1]The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading in aluminum scrap and is registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 as well as the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, “the GST Act”). The petitioner placed an order upon M/s. Cruzade International LLP for purchase of aluminum scrap, who issued the tax invoice as well as generated E-way bill before transportation of the goods as required under the provisions of the GST Act.

[2.2]The petitioner in turn issued the tax invoice in favour of its purchaser and also generated E-way bill of the said goods, which were accompanying the goods when it was transported to the purchaser of the goods from the petitioner.

[2.3]The respondent No.2 intercepted the conveyance on 1st December 2023 when the E-way bill was still valid. However, it was alleged that there was a discrepancy in the details mentioned in the invoice.

[2.4]The petitioner, thereafter, made representation in response to the seizure and also requested to release of goods and conveyance.

[2.5]The respondent No.2, however, issued notice in Form GST MOV - 10 under Section 130 of the GST Act placing reliance upon the statement of the driver in Form GST MOV - 1.

[3] The petitioner filed a preliminary objection to the show cause notice issued in Form GST MOV - 10. However, without considering reply to the show cause notice of the petitioner and without giving any personal hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order in Form GST MOV -

11.

[4] Learned advocate Mr. Uchit Sheth for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dhanlaxmi Metals vs. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No.15680 of 2021 decided on 28th July 2022), to submit that once the petitioner has made a request for provisional release of the goods on issuance of the show cause notice in Form GST MOV - 10 under Section 130 of the GST Act, the respondent authority is required to pass an order for provisional release subject to outcome of the proceedings as per Rule 140 of the GST Rules, 2017.

[5] It was further submitted that the impugned confiscation order in Form GST MOV - 11 is also passed in breach of the principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Dhanlaxmi Metals (supra).

[6] On the other hand, learned A.G.P. Ms. Shrunjal Shah appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent authority has recorded in the impugned order that the proper opportunity of clarifying the issue raised in the show cause notice was given to the petitioner, however, the petitioner did not reply to the particular point of purchase and dispatch place of the goods raised by the respondent, and as such, the petitioner has ignored the particular point and for that reason, it was decided not to grant any personal hearing to the petitioner by passing the impugned order.

[7] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it appears that the stand of the respondent authority in not granting the personal hearing to the petitioner is not tenable and is in complete breach of the pri