JUDGMENT Ajay Bhanot, J. Heard Shri. Shrey Ashat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2020 passed by the competent authority in purported exercise of powers under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act detaining the goods and the vehicle of the petitioner and imposing a demand of applicable tax and penalty equal to 100% of the tax payable on the seized goods. 3. The petitioner took the order passed by the seizing/assessing authority in appeal with no better result. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 28.12.2020. 4. The short contention of the writ petitioner is that the detained goods were being transported as part of a stock transfer. The goods were not being moved in pursuance to any sale or purchase. The goods were not liable to tax. The detention of the goods and imposition of tax and penalty were unlawful. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid ground has not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel could not establish consideration of the aforesaid objection from the impugned order passed by the appellate authority. 6. In this wake, I find that the ground raised by the petitioner merits consideration by the appellate authority in the first instance. Clearly, the appellate authority has failed to do so. Failure of the appellate authority to advert to the said objections of the petitioner, reflects non application of mind to germane issues and vitiates the impugned order passed by the appellate authority. 7. The impugned order dated 28.12.2020 passed by the appellate authority is consequently set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.