Alternative statutory remedy limits writ review, while seized GST goods and vehicle may be released on bank guarantee.

An efficacious statutory appeal under the GST regime barred immediate writ intervention against the penalty and detention proceedings, as the petitioner's objections could be raised before the appellate authority, which was expected to decide them after hearing. The writ court therefore declined to examine the merits of the penalty order and relegated the petitioner to the appellate remedy. On release of seized goods and vehicle, the governing rule permitted release on furnishing a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the competent authority, and the petitioner was allowed to seek such release in accordance with the prescribed GST procedure.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty order and detention proceedings was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy; (ii) Whether the goods and vehicle could be directed to be released on furnishing of bank guarantee.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the penalty order and detention proceedings was maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petitioner had an effective remedy of appeal under the GST regime against the penalty order. The objections raised in the writ petition could be urged before the appellate authority, which was expected to consider them and pass a reasoned order after granting opportunity of hearing. In such circumstances, the writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked when the statute provided a suitable mechanism for redressal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on this issue, and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods and vehicle could be directed to be released on furnishing of bank guarantee.

Analysis: The governing rule contemplated release of seized goods and vehicle on furnishing security in the form of bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the competent authority. The respondents did not dispute that such release could be granted in accordance with the rule.

Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to move the competent authority for release of the goods and vehicle, and release was to be considered on furnishing of bank guarantee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal against the penalty order and by directing consideration of release of the seized goods and vehicle in accordance with the prescribed GST procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the writ court ordinarily will not adjudicate the merits of the penalty order, and seized goods or vehicle may be released only in accordance with the statutory security mechanism.

---