ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. Anjali Jha Manish and Mr. Anmol Arya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ayush Singh & Mr. Akshay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred these writ petitions challenging the show cause notice dated 02.10.2022 and the validity of the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the respondents under Section 130 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act’) confiscating the goods and conveyance of the petitioner in transit. 3. The petitioner alleges that it had purchased the goods i.e. Areca nuts (betel nuts) from Chilur in Karnataka and the same were being transported to Delhi. The said goods during transit were intercepted, detained and finally confiscated vide impugned order dated 02.11.2022. 4. The submission is that the aforesaid order is without jurisdiction and has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The provisions of Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which exclusively deal with the detention and seizure of the goods in transit and provides for a complete mechanism thereof, have not been followed and straightway the order of confiscation has been passed under Section 130 of the Act. In passing the above order, no finding has been returned that the petitioner had any intention of evasion of the tax, therefore, the order of confiscation is unsustainable in law. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents objects to the filing of the writ petitions on the ground that the order of confiscation is appeallable and, therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Moreover the points, as urged by the petitioner, are disputed questions of fact which cannot be agitated and adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction and, therefore, it is all the more necessary that the petitioner should avail the remedy of appeal. The goods and conveyance have been confiscated as the documents accompanying the goods were found to be suspicious and the whole transaction of sale and purchase appeared to be bogus as the supply was being made to a non-existent person. 6. In response to the above objections, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the purchaser, to whom the goods were supplied. 6. In response to the above objections, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the purchaser, to whom the goods were supplied. Since the proceedings were drawn and an order cancelling its registration under the GST was passed by the authorities in Delhi, the same was challenged by it by means of a writ petition before the High Court at Delhi being Writ Petition (C) No.16388/2022. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 and the order cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner was quashed, may be with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Thus, in the above circumstances, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the petitioner is non-existent and that the supplies were being made to a bogus firm. 7. The order of physical verification/inspection of the conveyance, goods and documents on record reveals that the goods and conveyance were detained as the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Circle, Jaipur-III was of the prima facie opinion that the documents tendered were apparently defective and that the genuineness of the goods in transit, its quantity and the tendered documents required further verification. Accordingly, he requested the Special Commissioner, Trade and Tax Department, Government of Delhi to inquire with regard to the existence of the supplier at Delhi i.e. the petitioner and to submit a report. In pursuance thereof, a field visit report was submitted recording that the premises of the petitioner was visited on 27.09.2022 at around 02:00 PM and it was found that the address of the petitioner-firm is not traceable. The registered mobile number of the petitioner-firm is switched-off. Therefore, it seems that the firm is non-existing at the given address. Accordingly, a show cause notice for confiscation was given on 02.10.2022 stating that the goods in movement were intercepted on 25.09.2022 and were inspected in accordance with Section 68 of the Act, and that the Department proposes to confiscate the goods and the conveyance. The show cause notice further indicated the quantity of Areca nuts (betel nuts) to be 24,500 Kg. having a value of Rs.68,60,000/- as per the invoice available and on it 5% integrated tax was chargeable. Accordingly, the penalty amount of Rs.3,43,000/-, equivalent to integrated tax was proposed to be determined with a fine of Rs.68,60,000/-. The show cause notice further indicated the quantity of Areca nuts (betel nuts) to be 24,500 Kg. having a value of Rs.68,60,000/- as per the invoice available and on it 5% integrated tax was chargeable. Accordingly, the penalty amount of Rs.3,43,000/-, equivalent to integrated tax was proposed to be determined with a fine of Rs.68,60,000/-. The petitioner as such was required to furnish his reply and to appear for personal hearing. 8. The said show cause notice was challenged by the petitioner by filing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16125/2022-M/s KPM Enterprises Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. In the said writ petition, counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply advance copy of the petition to Mr. Punit Singhvi, learned counsel, who appears for the State GST and the matter was directed to be posted on 03.11.2022 vide order dated 02.11.2022. However, in the meantime the confiscation order was passed on 02.11.2022 itself. 9. The confiscation order clearly states that upon physical verification, purchaser firm was found to be non-existent and no trading activity was being carried out and as such, the entire transaction appears to be bogus. 10. The first point of dispute is the existence or non-existence of the petitioner-firm. The petitioner is harping on the order of cancellation of its GST registration and setting aside of the said order by the Delhi High Court to contend that it is a registered firm and cannot be treated as bogus or non-existent. 11. The second point of dispute is whether the confiscation order could have been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 129 of the Act and without returning any finding with regard to intention to evade tax. 12. The other point which may also arise is whether penalty or fine could have been imposed without the assessment of tax. 13. A bare reading of the order of confiscation or even the show cause notice makes it clear enough that 5% integrated tax is chargeable on the assessed goods having the value of Rs.68,60,000/-, which obviously comes to Rs.3,43,000/- and thus an equal amount of penalty is imposed. The calculation of the penalty aforesaid is based upon 5% integrated tax and it cannot be said that it has been imposed without assessing the tax. 14. The calculation of the penalty aforesaid is based upon 5% integrated tax and it cannot be said that it has been imposed without assessing the tax. 14. In context with the finding in respect of intention to evade tax, the confiscation order states that since the transaction was being made to a bogus firm, the presumption is that the same was being done with the intention to evade tax. The aforesaid presumption drawn logically appears to be sufficient enough for the purposes of passing a confiscation order under Section 130 of the Act. 15. The issue whether the procedure prescribed under Section 129 of the Act was followed or not in passing the confiscation order, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court, at this stage, more particularly without affording an opportunity to the respondents to file counter affidavit to rebut the allegations in that regard. 16. The confiscation order is apparently not violative of the principles of natural justice as it has been passed after service of show cause notice dated 02.10.2022 and after affording full opportunity to the petitioner to produce all relevant material and to submit proper explanation. 17. It is not disputed that the order of confiscation passed under Section 130 of the Act is open to appeal under Section 107 before the Appellate Authority, which can be filed within three months from the date of the impugned order, or its communication. 18. The decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Veer Pratab Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Kerala, represented by its Secretary & Ors., reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 22823, is of no help to the petitioner as in the said case the confiscation order was set aside in writ jurisdiction on the ground that there was no finding that there was any intention to evade payment of tax, which is not the case in the case at hand. Even the Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Karnataka Traders Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 435 (Guj.) is of no consequence as in the said case, the goods were seized on the ground of change of route of the vehicle and undervaluation, which were not prescribed grounds for seizure of goods in transit. 19. State of Gujarat, reported in 2022 (63) G.S.T.L. 435 (Guj.) is of no consequence as in the said case, the goods were seized on the ground of change of route of the vehicle and undervaluation, which were not prescribed grounds for seizure of goods in transit. 19. The decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shiva Enterprises Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2022 (58) G.S.T.L. 385 (P&H) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the above case, the goods and conveyance in transit were confiscated even though all documents, as prescribed, were accompanying the same i.e. the invoice and the E-way bill and there was no discrepancy pointed out in the said documents and there was no other contravention of any provision of the GST Act. The confiscation was made on a ground which was alien for the purposes of confiscation of goods and conveyance. 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as some of the issues raised in the writ petitions regarding existence and nonexistence of the petitioner-firm, intention to evade payment of tax and whether the procedure under Section 129 of the Act was followed before passing the impugned order, involves disputed questions of fact and law, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, more particularly at the stage of admission without inviting response from the respondents coupled with the fact that all the above issues can be better adjudicated upon in appeal before the Appellate Authority, we do not deem it fit to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter. 21. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Act and to apply for the release of the confiscated goods and conveyance. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.