Court orders release of truck pending payment of fine under Article 226; owner has option to pay fine instead of facing confiscation.

The court granted the writ applicant's request for the release of a truck under Article 226, directing the respondents to release the truck upon payment of a specified fine as an interim measure. The interpretation of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 was crucial, with the court noting the option for the owner to pay a fine instead of facing confiscation. A final order of confiscation had been issued, prompting the court to advise the applicant to challenge this order through an appeal under Section 107. The judgment disposed of the writ application, allowing the applicant the liberty to appeal following the prescribed appellate process.

---

---

Issues:
1. Writ application under Article 226 - Relief sought for release of truck
2. Interpretation of Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
3. Order of confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017
4. Direction to challenge order of confiscation through appeal under Section 107 of the Act

Analysis:

1. The writ applicant filed a petition seeking the release of a truck under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicant requested a writ of mandamus or a similar order to direct the respondents to release the truck. The court noted a previous order concerning the provisions of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. The order highlighted the option for the owner of a conveyance used for hire to pay a fine instead of facing confiscation. The court directed the release of the truck upon payment of a specified fine as an interim measure.

2. The interpretation of Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 was a key issue in the judgment. The petitioner's counsel referred to the third proviso to subsection (2) of the Act, emphasizing the option for the owner to pay a fine equal to the tax payable on the goods transported, instead of facing confiscation. The government pleader disputed this position, citing other provisions of the Act. The court considered these arguments and issued a notice for further proceedings.

3. The court acknowledged that a final order of confiscation had been issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the court directed the writ applicant to challenge this order through an appeal before the appellate authority as provided under Section 107 of the Act. As the truck had already been released as per the interim order, the court deemed no further adjudication necessary in the current matter.

4. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ application, granting the applicant the liberty to appeal in accordance with the law. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, emphasizing the procedural aspect of challenging the order of confiscation through the prescribed appellate process.

---