Premature writ challenge to seizure and confiscation rejected while factual inquiry on duty liability remained unfinished

A writ challenge to seizure and confiscation was treated as premature because the investigation had not been completed and the material facts remained disputed. The source of the HDPE fabrics, the manufacturing process, and whether the goods were exempt from excise duty or liable to confiscation all depended on unresolved factual inquiry. In that setting, the Court declined to examine the merits of the competing claims and reiterated that writ relief is not appropriate before the authorities complete the factual determination. The petition was therefore not maintainable at that stage against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging seizure and confiscation was premature and not fit for admission while the underlying investigation and factual controversy remained unresolved.

Analysis: The seizure dispute turned on contested facts, including the source of the HDPE fabrics, the manner of manufacture, and the liability of the goods to excise duty. The record showed that investigation was still in progress and the authorities had not yet completed the factual inquiry necessary to determine whether the goods were exempt or were liable to duty and confiscation. In such circumstances, the Court declined to enter into the merits of the competing factual claims and followed the view that writ relief should not be granted before the enquiry is completed.

Conclusion: The writ petition was premature and not maintainable for adjudication at that stage, against the assessee.

---