JUDGMENT : (BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.) Petitioners challenge Ext.P27 order of the fifth respondent appellate authority, under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act'), regarding the prayer for interim release of goods confiscated under the said Act. 2. Petitioners are the appellants before the fifth respondent. They have challenged Ext.P21 order of confiscation issued under Section 130 of the CGST Act. 2466.3 kg of cardamom valued at Rs.49,32,600/- has been directed to be confiscated while, on behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that the vehicle on which it was being transported has not been ordered to be confiscated, but has only been imposed with a fine of Rs.1,23,315/- towards CGST/SGST apart from consequential penalty. When the commodity was placed for auction pending the appeal, petitioners sought for interim release of the goods as well as the vehicle. By the impugned order, the appellate authority rejected the prayer for unconditional release, and instead granted liberty to obtain release of the goods and conveyance on payment of penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation. 3. Petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order contending that the value for release of the goods as an interim measure is exorbitant, that it practically renders the relief granted by the appellate authority redundant. It is also contended that the cardamom seized cannot be treated as a perishable commodity and hence the auction should not be permitted to be conducted before disposing the appeal. 4. I have heard Sri. Dr. Pradeep K.P., the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Smt.Jasmin M.M., the learned Government Pleader. 5. When the goods and vehicle were seized and proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST Act initiated, petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1848/2025. Against the refusal to grant any relief as sought for as an interim measure, petitioners filed W.A.No.219/2025. However, the Division Bench permitted the petitioners to pursue their statutory remedies against the order of confiscation. Thereafter the appeal was filed before the statutory authority which is still pending. In the meantime, petitioners preferred an application for interim release of the goods ordered to be confiscated. However, the Division Bench permitted the petitioners to pursue their statutory remedies against the order of confiscation. Thereafter the appeal was filed before the statutory authority which is still pending. In the meantime, petitioners preferred an application for interim release of the goods ordered to be confiscated. Since an auction was proposed in the meantime, a review petition was filed before the Division Bench and by order dated 18.02.2025 in R.P.No.226 of 2025 the respondents were directed to keep in abeyance the proposal to auction the cardamom till the appellate authority considers the application for interim release of the goods. The impugned order was issued by the appellate authority thereafter, refusing unconditional release and instead, directed the goods and the vehicles to be released on payment of penalty and fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods as well as the vehicle. 6. It is worthwhile to mention that as per a notice dated 14.02.2025, the respondents had intimated that the cardamom shall be put up for auction on 21.02.2025 before the Spice Park Auction Centre in accordance with the regulations of the Spices Board and invited participants for the auction. However, in view of the order of the Division Bench, the said auction did not take place. 7. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an interim order of the appellate authority can be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances. Courts ought not to interfere with interim orders of a statutory appellate authority unless the order is perverse or without authority or in violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On a perusal of the impugned order, this Court cannot find any such perversity or violation of the principles of natural justice. The order cannot also be said to be without authority. Further, the appellate authority has considered every aspect and has even permitted interim release of the goods and the vehicle on payment of fine and penalty in lieu of confiscation. The impugned order is in consonance with the statutory scheme. I do not find any reason to interfere with such a well considered order. 9. The contention of the petitioners that cardamom is not a perishable good cannot be accepted on its face value. Being an agricultural product, its value can diminish over time. The impugned order is in consonance with the statutory scheme. I do not find any reason to interfere with such a well considered order. 9. The contention of the petitioners that cardamom is not a perishable good cannot be accepted on its face value. Being an agricultural product, its value can diminish over time. However, since the price of cardamom fluctuates on a day to day basis and the auction is the only a process in which the maximum price can be obtained, I am of the view that the reliefs granted to the petitioners in the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse. If the petitioners want interim release of the goods and the vehicle, they are at liberty to do so on conditions. Since the conditions imposed are not contrary to the statutory stipulations, the impugned order warrants no interference. 10. Petitioners however expressed their apprehension that if they are unable to get release of the goods directed in the impugned order, the respondents may resort to an auction according to their own will and pleasure which may not fetch the market price. In this context, the learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that if petitioners do not take back the cardamom as directed in the impugned order, the commodity will be placed for auction at the licenced auction centre in accordance with the stipulations of the Spices Board as intimated earlier in Ext.P24. In view of the above submission which is recorded, the apprehension of the petitioners to that extent stands redressed. 11. After the judgment was dictated, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the case was posted as ‘to be spoken to’ today. The learned counsel for the petitioners made a request for release of the goods on furnishing bank guarantee, which was opposed by the learned Government Pleader and pointed out that the petitioners are already protected by the order since the amount obtained in the auction has been directed to be retained till the disposal of the appeal. 12. On an appreciation of the rival submissions, I am of the view that since the goods in question is a perishable commodity and has already been confiscated thereby becoming the property of the Government, the request for release on the basis of a bank guarantee cannot be entertained. 12. On an appreciation of the rival submissions, I am of the view that since the goods in question is a perishable commodity and has already been confiscated thereby becoming the property of the Government, the request for release on the basis of a bank guarantee cannot be entertained. Petitioners can either obtain release on depositing the amount or have the commodity be placed for auction to fetch the maximum price. In fact, for cardamom, auction is the ideal mode for obtaining the best price on a given day. The question whether, on a future date, the commodity will get a better price remains in a state of uncertainty, and that cannot be a reason to permit release on the basis of a bank guarantee. Hence, the said request is declined. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.