Writ relief in pending GST seizure proceedings refused where statutory appeal remained available against the final order.

Writ jurisdiction was treated as inappropriate to interrupt pending GST proceedings for release of seized goods and conveyance where the matter remained at the MOV-10 stage and no final order had yet been passed. The Court directed the authority to complete the proceedings, required the petitioner to appear and present his case when notice was issued, and noted that any final MOV-11 order could be challenged through the statutory appellate remedy. The relief for immediate release of the goods was therefore not granted, with the petitioner left to pursue the pending proceedings and appeal mechanism under the GST law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking release of seized goods and conveyance was liable to be entertained when proceedings under the GST enactment were pending and the petitioner had recourse to the statutory remedy against any final order.

Analysis: The proceedings were stated to be at the MOV-10 stage and no further notice had been received. The petition was disposed of by directing the respondent authority to complete the proceedings initiated under the GST enactment. The petitioner was required to appear before the authority and present his case when notice was issued. The Court also clarified that if a final order in MOV-11 were passed, the petitioner could challenge it by appeal under the statutory appellate provision.

Conclusion: The writ relief for release of goods was not granted, and the petitioner was left to pursue the proceedings and the statutory appeal remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction will not ordinarily be used to short-circuit pending GST proceedings where the statute provides a remedy against the final order.

---