- (1.) Heard Shri Shubham Agrawal assisted by Miss Sanyukta Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have sought the following relief : "(a) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the seizure order dated 25.9.2017 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) as well as the consequential notice dated 26.9.2017 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 4. (a-2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the penalty order dated 26.10.17 (Annexure CA-10) served upon the petitioner. (b) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 4 to release the goods and vehicle forthwith without demanding any security. (c) Issue any other Writ, Order or Direction in favour of the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner."
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 and 4 being the transporters indulge in carrying on the business of transportation of goods from one place to another. The petitioner no. 2 and 3 are the buyers/purchasers and are registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act/Rules, 2017. The petitioner no. 2 and 3 have affected certain purchases from different sellers situated at Delhi. According to petitioners no. 2 and 3 since they are duly registered under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (C.G.S.T. ACT) and the goods which are purchased by them are duly accompanying with the requisite Tax Invoices, Bilty as well as E-Way Bill, therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in detaining and seizing the goods under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide order dated 25.9.2017 is bad. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even the vehicle has also been seized by the respondent no. 4 after detention of the goods and, therefore, the entire action of the respondent authorities is wholly illegal, arbitrary as well as without jurisdiction.;