GST Confiscation Challenge Dismissed as Statutory Appeal Under Section 107 Provides Adequate Remedy

The HC declined to entertain a writ application challenging a GST confiscation notice (Form GST MOV 10), noting that a statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 was available. Despite court instructions to halt proceedings, authorities had already passed a final confiscation order (Form MOV 11). The HC disposed of the application without expressing opinion on merits, directing the Appellate Authority to expedite any appeal filed by the applicant and decide within 15 days of registration. The applicant retained liberty to challenge the confiscation order through proper appellate channels, where they could raise the ex-parte nature of the proceedings as a ground.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to confiscation notice in Form GST MOV 10
2. Direction to release conveyance
3. Stay on further proceedings
4. Ex parte ad interim relief
5. Entertaining writ application
6. Statutory remedy of filing an appeal
7. Reserving liberty to file an appeal

Challenge to Confiscation Notice in Form GST MOV 10:
The writ applicant sought relief by challenging a confiscation notice in Form GST MOV 10 and requested the release of a conveyance. The Court noted that despite instructions to halt the final order of confiscation, the authority proceeded to pass the final order in Form MOV 11. The applicant claimed the order was ex-parte. The Court, however, declined to entertain the writ application, citing the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 107 of the Act. The Court advised that the applicant could raise the ex-parte nature of the order as a ground in an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

Direction to Release Conveyance:
The applicant requested a direction to release the conveyance bearing a specific registration number. The Court highlighted that the final order of confiscation had already been passed before the court's order but served later. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to expedite the appeal process and decide on the matter within 15 days of registration.

Stay on Further Proceedings and Ex Parte Relief:
The applicant sought a stay on further proceedings related to the confiscation notice and requested ex parte ad interim relief. The Court did not grant the ex parte relief but disposed of the writ application without expressing any opinion on the merits. The Court reserved the liberty for the applicant to file an appeal challenging the final order of confiscation before the Appellate Authority.

Entertaining Writ Application:
The Court acknowledged the writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where the applicant sought various reliefs related to the confiscation notice and the release of the conveyance. The Court heard arguments from both parties and issued notices to the respondents.

Statutory Remedy of Filing an Appeal:
The Court emphasized that the writ applicant had a statutory remedy available to challenge the final order of confiscation by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Act. The Court suggested that the applicant could raise the issue of lack of hearing as a ground in the appeal process.

Reserving Liberty to File an Appeal:
While disposing of the writ application, the Court reserved the liberty for the applicant to file an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority to challenge the legality and validity of the final order of confiscation. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it open for further legal recourse through the appeal process.

---