Writ relief for release of seized goods denied where ownership was disputed and GST appellate remedy was available.

Writ relief for immediate release of intercepted goods and vehicle was declined where the petitioner's claim of ownership and consignee status was seriously disputed by the revenue authorities. The court noted that the material suggested possible tax evasion, making ownership a contested factual issue that could not be pre-empted in Article 226 proceedings and had to be decided by the competent authority under the GST framework. The availability of an appellate remedy under the statute also weighed against direct writ interference. On that basis, the request for release was rejected in favour of the ordinary statutory process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to immediate release of the intercepted goods and vehicle in writ jurisdiction, despite the disputed ownership of the goods and the availability of an appellate remedy under the GST law.

Analysis: The claim for release turned on the petitioner's asserted status as consignee and owner of the detained goods, but the material placed by the respondents raised a serious dispute on ownership and indicated a possible tax evasion exercise. In such a situation, the question whether the petitioner was the owner of the goods could not be pre-empted in writ proceedings and had to be determined by the competent authority in accordance with law. The existence of an appealable order under the GST framework also weighed against interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to a writ order for release of the goods and vehicle; interference was declined in view of the disputed facts and the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

---