High Court grants relief in writ application for release of truck & goods pending appeal, emphasizes statutory remedy

The High Court disposed of the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution, granting relief for the release of a truck and goods subject to the final outcome. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act within thirty days, with an obligation to pay the differential amount if unsuccessful in the appeal process. The Court emphasized adherence to the statutory remedy and the necessity of timely action to avoid enforcement of prior orders.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief.
2. Order passed by a Coordinate Bench dated 27th September 2019.
3. Release of truck and goods subject to final outcome of the writ application.
4. Examination of legality and validity of the final order of confiscation.
5. Availability of statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act.
6. Disposal of the writ application with liberty to prefer an appeal.
7. Requirement to pay the differential amount if the writ applicant fails in the appeal.
8. Undertaking filed by the writ applicant on oath.
9. Timeframe for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking various reliefs, including quashing an impugned order and directing the release of a truck along with its goods. The Coordinate Bench had previously ordered the release of the truck subject to the final outcome of the writ application.

2. The order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 27th September 2019 directed the release of the truck and goods based on the amount already deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner was also required to file an undertaking to pay the differential amount if they fail in the petition/proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act.

3. The High Court noted that the final order of confiscation had been passed, and as a statutory remedy, the writ applicant could appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The Court decided to dispose of the writ application with liberty for the petitioner to file an appeal within thirty days.

4. It was clarified that if the writ applicant fails in the appeal, they would be liable to pay the differential amount as per the earlier order. The Court also acknowledged the undertaking filed by the petitioner and set a timeframe for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act to avoid enforcement of the previous order.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, court orders, and the statutory remedy available to the petitioner, providing a comprehensive overview of the judgment.

---