JUDGMENT Heard Shri Varun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. 2. The writ petition questions the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 10.7.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST, respondent No. 1 in Form GST-DRC-07 imposing penalty of a sum of Rs.8,47,164/- upon the petitioner and at the same time, the goods subject matter of tax invoice SD-163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168 as also the vehicle itself has been confiscated. A prayer to quash/set aside the notice dated 5.7.2023 under Section 129 of CGST Act in Form GSTDRC-01 and order of detention under Section 129 (1) CGST Act in Form GST MOV-06 has also been claimed. A further prayer to release the goods of petitioner worth Rs.27,76,811/- (including IGST of Rs.4,23,581/-) has been prayed for. 3. The proceedings undertaken against the petitioner leading up to passing of the impugned order dated 10.7.2023 proceeds on the premise that the E-way Bills generated on the basis of tax invoices SD-163, 164, 165, 166, 167 and 168 is for ODC vehicle type but the vehicle being used for transporting the goods was truck (open body) (HGV) common truck. On account of mention of ODC vehicle type in the e-way bills its validity is for 4 days whereas the petitioner has been using common truck (open body) (HGV) validity being only 24 hours to transport the goods in violation of Section 138 (10) of the CGST Act. The explanation of the petitioner has been found to be unsatisfactory and the petitioner is guilty of evasion of tax. 4. It is vehemently argued that the discrepancy in the vehicle type mentioned in the E-way Bills is an oversight and clerical mistake on the part of the transporter and the same does not lead to any tax evasion by the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon a decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhaberiya Polywood Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2022 (141) Taxmann.com 210 (Gujarat) to buttress the point that a consignment of good accompanied with an invoice or any other specified documents and also on e-way bill, proceedings under Section 129 of CGST Act shall not be ordinarily initiated especially when there is a bona fide mistake on the part of the tax payer. Reliance his also placed upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shahil Traders v. State of U.P. reported in 2023 (152) Taxmann.com.24 (Alld) whereunder the Court has held that there must be an intent to evade the tax. 5. Prima facie, we find that the petitioner has no intent to evade tax, nor there is any allegation by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner has the intent to evade duty nor any duty has been evaded. 6. Matter requires consideration. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks' thereafter is granted to counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit. 8. List this case after expiry of aforesaid period. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 10.7.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1 in Form CST DRC-07 imposing penalty of Rs.8,47,164/- upon the petitioner shall remain stayed. The respondent No. 1 shall also release the goods and vehicle confiscated under the impugned order on such conditions as may deem fit and proper.