JUDGMENT : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. Petitioner seeks for a direction to quash the detention and confiscation order issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the CGST Act’). Petitioner also seeks for a direction to release his vehicle apart from a declaration that the detention of the vehicle without proper notice violates the provisions of the Constitution. 2. Petitioner is the owner of a truck bearing registration No.KL-31-J-5759. According to the petitioner, on 23.11.2024, the vehicle transported bilge water from INS Vikramaditya from Cochin Wharf possessing all supporting documents including a delivery note issued by authorised personnel of the Indian Navy. While it was parked, the respondents inspected the vehicle on 24.11.2024 and thereafter moved the vehicle from the petitioner’s parking ground to another parking place on 25.11.2024. Later, on 10.01.2025, petitioner claims to have received a detention order under Section 130 of the CGST Act. According to the petitioner, he has no knowledge or involvement in the alleged tax evasion, and the vehicle was hired only to transport goods, for which no tax is payable and hence the detention is illegal. Exhibit-P2 delivery note issued by the Indian Navy indicates that there is no value for the goods found in the vehicle, and hence, the vehicle ought to be released since it has been remaining idle for more than 50 days as on the date of filing of the writ petition, causing serious loss to him, claims the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit was filed initially, on behalf of the first respondent stating that petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands after misrepresenting facts. It is averred that the vehicle was intercepted on 24.11.2024, and the petitioner himself was contacted, and the driver’s phone number was obtained. It is further averred that when the driver was contacted, he stated that no documents were entrusted with him before transporting the goods and hence MOV 1 and MOV 2 notices were served by affixing them on the vehicle, and a copy was sent through WhatsApp and the driver was asked to be present on 25.11.2024 with all the required documents. Thereafter, the driver gave a written statement that no documents corresponding to the goods loaded in the tanker lorry were entrusted to him by M/s. Petroliv Petroleums, and he also stated that the tanker contains water mixed with waste oil. Thereafter, the driver gave a written statement that no documents corresponding to the goods loaded in the tanker lorry were entrusted to him by M/s. Petroliv Petroleums, and he also stated that the tanker contains water mixed with waste oil. It is also stated that an order of confiscation dated 21.12.2024 was received by the petitioner himself, and it is reasonably understood that petitioner in collusion with M/s. Petroliv Petroleums, is attempting to get release of the vehicle by misleading the Court. According to the respondents, the goods detained are hazardous waste governed by the Hazardous Material (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2007, and are to be handled, stored and transported following the guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time. Since sullage can be handled only by following the guidelines and supervision of the Pollution Control Board, Kerala, careless handling and transferring of waste may result in environmental damage, and hence, the vehicle ought not to be released unless the fine and penalty imposed on the goods and the vehicle are remitted. 4. Since the petitioner asserted during the course of arguments that no order of confiscation was ever served on him, an additional counter affidavit was filed by the respondent producing a copy of the order of confiscation dated 21.12.2024, and pointed out that petitioner was served with such a copy pursuant to a request made by him, and the order as well as the request letter containing the endorsement indicating receipt of order was produced. It is also pointed out that there was repeated communication with the petitioner and the Senior Enforcement Officer through Whatsapp, which also indicated the receipt of the copy of the order. 5. I have heard Sri. Faizel K., the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr. Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 6. From the very beginning, petitioner had been asserting that he was not served with any notice or even copy of orders relating to detention and confiscation of the vehicle bearing No.KL-31-J-5759. Exhibit-R1(a) is the order dated 21.12.2024 issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act confiscating the goods apart from the vehicle. Fine in lieu of the conveyance has also been fixed therein. Considering the nature of goods that were being transported in the vehicle, obviously, the vehicle alone cannot be released without removing the sullage/waste oil. Exhibit-R1(a) is the order dated 21.12.2024 issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act confiscating the goods apart from the vehicle. Fine in lieu of the conveyance has also been fixed therein. Considering the nature of goods that were being transported in the vehicle, obviously, the vehicle alone cannot be released without removing the sullage/waste oil. A perusal of Exhibit-R1(a) indicates that petitioner himself had endorsed in the said order that he had received the order copy on 10.01.2025. It is further evident from Exhibit-R1(c) that petitioner requested the respondents to provide him with a copy, and even in that letter, there is an endorsement that he had received the copy of the order on 10.01.2025. This writ petition was filed on 17.01.2025, and nowhere is there any reference to the receipt of the order of confiscation, and the petitioner even failed to produce the copy of the order. In fact there is a pleading that on 10.1.2025 he received the copy of the detention order. However there is no reference to the order of confiscation. On the other hand, the writ petition has been framed in such a manner indicating that petitioner was never ever served with the order of confiscation. 7. Since it is evident that petitioner was served with the order of confiscation dated 21.12.2024, atleast on 10.01.2025, petitioner ought to take recourse to the appellate remedies available under the CGST Act. Recourse to the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained, in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law as per the provisions of the CGST Act. The period spent by the petitioner in pursuing this writ petition from 17.01.2025 till the date of Judgment shall stand excluded, for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation for filing an appeal.