ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Shaik Jeelani Basha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in detaining the Granite Slabs along with vehicle bearing No.AP 39T 5599 and keeping the same in the safe custody of respondent No.2 vide Notice No.1156/VG/2008, dated 28.03.2025 as illegal and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to release the goods and vehicle. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that he is the owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 39T 5599. While he was transporting the polished granite slabs/goods through the said lorry from the Seller M/s. Bhuvanagiri Enterprises, Markapur, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh State, to the Buyer Mr. Mahesh at Pune, Maharashtra State, the respondent authorities detained the same for want of proof of payment of royalty on mineral used for the polished granite under transportation and kept the lorry in respondent No.2 custody. It is also contended by the petitioner that despite showing the copies of Tax Invoice No.70, dated 20.03.2025 having GSTIN 37DVLPB9072EIZE for 4950 square feet of granite slabs worth Rs.2,07,900/- an IGST Tax of Rs.37,422/- @ 18% totaling to Rs.2,45,322/- issued by the Seller, e-Way Bill No.172071780898, dated 20.03.2025, vehicle RC, permit and Insurance documents, the respondent authorities did not release the vehicle. It is also contended that for finished goods, there is no need of producing document showing payment of royalty and that the subject goods under transportation are finished goods and are covered by tax invoice and e-way bill evidencing purchase of goods from a registered Seller in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, issuance of notice dated 28.03.2025 by respondent No.1 requiring the petitioner to furnish source of procurement of goods or else to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,400/- towards penalty is illegal. 4. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner by mentioning the goods under transport as ‘granite slabs’ in the tax invoice, is transporting semi-finished/unfinished/ uncut slabs, vide letter dated 23.03.2025, respondent No.2 informed the same to respondent No.1 to verify the documents produced by the petitioner. 5. 4. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner by mentioning the goods under transport as ‘granite slabs’ in the tax invoice, is transporting semi-finished/unfinished/ uncut slabs, vide letter dated 23.03.2025, respondent No.2 informed the same to respondent No.1 to verify the documents produced by the petitioner. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, would submit that on receipt of information from respondent No.2, respondent No.1 verified the documents furnished by the petitioner, such as Tax Invoice, E-way bill, vehicle R.C. and permit and Insurance Papers. But, he has not furnished any information regarding source of procurement of the subject goods, such as payment of royalty and, therefore, issued notice dated 28.03.2025 to the petitioner requiring him to produce source of procurement of the subject goods, or else to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,400/- towards penalty. Since the subject goods are not finished one, the petitioner is liable to pay the said amount. 6. The Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 specifies the procedures for the extraction and transportation of minor minerals, including granite. While raw minerals require royalty payment documentation during transportation, finished products like granite slabs may not require such documentation. In this case, the presence of a valid e-way bill and tax invoice would prima facie indicate lawful transportation of goods. The absence of a royalty payment document for finished products should not be a ground for seizure unless there is evidence of illegal extraction or non-payment of dues. Therefore, the seizure of the subject vehicle transporting finished granite slabs without a royalty payment document appears to be unwarranted. 7. In similar circumstances, this Court passed orders dated 10.02.2025, 07.02.2025 and 05.02.2025 in W.P. Nos.3618 of 2025, 3483 of 2025 and 3205 of 2025, respectively, directing the respondent authorities to release the vehicle, and no appeals has been preferred challenging the said orders. Thus, the said orders have attained finality. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has produced letter dated 23.03.2025 of respondent No.2 addressed to respondent No.1 requesting to verify to take action with regard to the subject vehicle on the ground that it is transporting granite load from Andhra Pradesh State. Thus, the said orders have attained finality. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has produced letter dated 23.03.2025 of respondent No.2 addressed to respondent No.1 requesting to verify to take action with regard to the subject vehicle on the ground that it is transporting granite load from Andhra Pradesh State. Respondent No.1 has addressed a letter dated 28.03.2025 to the petitioner herein requesting him to submit explanation with regard to source of procurement of granites/slabs transporting them in the subject vehicle to the extent of 4950 square feet without royalty paid way bills. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 24.02.2016 in W.P. No.2682 of 2016. Both the said letters are placed on record. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology placing reliance on the decisions in L. Venkateswara Rao v. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. 1993 (3) ALT 199 and M/s. Novel Granites Ltd. v. Government of A.P. 2009 AIR (AP) 107 , would submit that the petitioner has to furnish the source of procurement of the aforesaid granite. 10. On consideration of the said aspects including the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court disposed of the aforesaid three writ petitions directing the respondent authorities to verify the description of the goods as mentioned in the Tax Invoice with the goods under transport and take action in accordance with law. 11. As discussed above, respondent No.1 did not prefer any appeal challenging the said orders in the aforesaid three writ petitions and, therefore, the said orders attained finality. As held by this Court in the aforesaid orders, it is for the respondents to verify the description of the goods as mentioned in the Tax Invoice with the goods under transport and take action in accordance with law. This Court agrees with the view taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions. Moreover, respondent No.1 failed to make out any case to defer with the said view. Therefore, the petitioner herein is also standing on the very same footing. To maintain parity, he is also entitled for the same relief. 12. This Court agrees with the view taken by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid three writ petitions. Moreover, respondent No.1 failed to make out any case to defer with the said view. Therefore, the petitioner herein is also standing on the very same footing. To maintain parity, he is also entitled for the same relief. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the fact that the subject goods are supported by tax invoice and waybill generated on the GST portal, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed to verify the description of the goods as mentioned in the tax invoice with the goods under transport, and if it is found that the subject goods are finished goods, cut/granite slabs as mentioned in the description of the tax invoice, the respondent authorities shall release the vehicle as well as the goods. However, during such inspection, if the authorities find that the subject goods are semi-finished/unfinished/uncut slabs requiring to be worked upon, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take further action in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder. The respondent authorities shall complete the aforesaid exercise within one (01) week from today. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.