Statutory appeal remedy under GST bars writ intervention, while seized goods and vehicle were protected pending appeal.

A writ petition challenging GST detention and penalty orders was not entertained because an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The Court indicated that the petitioner should pursue the appellate remedy under the GST law, and, on the assurance that the seized goods were not perishable and would not be sold if an appeal was filed, it protected the seized goods and vehicle from disposal pending the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging detention and penalty orders under the GST law should be entertained when an efficacious statutory appeal is available, and whether interim protection was warranted regarding the seized goods and vehicle.

Analysis: The dispute related to detention and penalty orders passed under the GST law. The petitioner had an efficacious appellate remedy under the statutory appeal provision. The Court found no good ground to entertain the writ petition. At the same time, on the assurance that the seized goods were not perishable and would not be sold if an appeal was filed in accordance with law, the Court protected the goods and vehicle from disposal pending appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on account of the statutory appellate remedy, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appeal while the seized goods and vehicle were protected from disposal pending such appeal.

---