THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 05.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in W.A.No.1385/2026 and W.A.No.1388/2026, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. W.A.No.1385/2026 and W.A.No.1388/2026 are directed against the orders dated 28.04.2026 and 08.04.2026 respectively passed on I.A.1/2026 by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.34329/2025 (T-RES) and WP.No.33220/2025 (T-RES) respectively, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the I.A.No.1/2026 as withdrawn reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners therein to file a writ appeal. I.A.No.1/2026 is filed in both the writ petitions seeking modification of the interim orders dated 05.12.2025 and 13.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.34329/2025 and W.P.No.33220/2025 respectively.

3. The interim orders dated 05.12.2025 and 13.11.2025 reads as follows:

"In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following interim relief:

"Pending disposal of the above writ petition, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to release the goods and vehicle bearing No.HR38 AE 9809 and stay the operation of the Confiscation Order No.ACCT/ENF/HVR/VIG-15/2025-26 in Form GST MOV-11 dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure-B) and Summary Order No.ZD2910250237489 in GST DRC-07 in dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure-C) passed by the Respondent No.3."

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the subject goods and vehicles may be provisionally released by imposing suitable terms and conditions in terms of the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.1599/2024 in the case of The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes And Another Vs. Trillion Lead Factory Private Limited.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and conditions as imposed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforementioned judgment.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and joint submissions made by both sides, pending disposal of the present petition, I deem it just and appropriate to direct the respondents to release the subject goods and vehicles in favour of the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing 25% of the demand raised in GST DRC-07 dated 09.10.2025 vide Annexure 'C' and furnishing Bank Guarantee to the remaining extent of 75%.

Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to seek vacation/modification of this order."

4. Heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

5. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that subsequent to passing of the aforesaid interim orders dated 05.12.2025 and 13.11.2025, in a batch of similar matters involving identical questions of law and fact i.e., wherein the arecanut traders were subjected to identical interception, detention and confiscation proceedings by the very same respondents in Chitradurga District, in WP.Nos.37627/2025, 37643/2025, 37805/2025 and 37841/2025, this Court has passed orders staying the impugned detention orders and also directed release of the goods and conveyances on the terms that the petitioners shall deposit 200% of the tax payable on the subject goods with the concerned respondents and the petitioners shall execute indemnity bonds in favour of the concerned respondents at the time of obtaining release of subject goods and conveyances.

6. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the facts and circumstances of the instant cases are identical to those in the batch of writ petitions referred to above. He further contends that the prescribed timeline for conducting and concluding inspection/verification proceedings is a maximum period of three days, as stipulated under Rule 138C of t