GST seizure and provisional release: writ relief may be refused where enquiry material supports search and statutory conditions remain unmet.

Article 226 relief against GST seizure was discussed in the context of an enquiry that disclosed declared and undeclared godowns, stock found at the undeclared premises, and other material supporting search and seizure under section 67(2) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act read with rule 139(1). The text notes that the petitioner did not comply with the statutory conditions for provisional release under section 67(6), as no bond, security, tax, interest, or penalty was deposited and the petitioner did not effectively respond to notices and summonses. On that basis, discretionary writ relief was declined and the challenge to seizure and request for release failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against seizure of goods and for release of the seized goods when the seizure was made under section 67(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the petitioner had not complied with the conditions for provisional release under section 67(6) of that Act.

Analysis: The seizure was preceded by an enquiry which disclosed declared and undeclared godowns, stock found at the undeclared premises, and other circumstances relied upon by the authorities to invoke the statutory power of search and seizure. The proceedings were stated to have been initiated under section 67(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with rule 139(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The record further showed that no bond, security, tax, interest, or penalty was deposited for provisional release as contemplated by section 67(6) of the Act, and notices and summonses had not evoked effective appearance from the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Court found the writ petitioner's stand evasive and vague and declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to relief and the challenge to seizure and request for release failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where seizure under the GST law is supported by an enquiry-based belief and the statutory conditions for provisional release are not met, writ relief under Article 226 may be refused in the exercise of discretion.

---