GST detention challenge limited by completed adjudication; writ declined where disputed facts and statutory remedy remained available.

A writ petition challenging an interception statement and GST detention proceedings was not entertained where the statutory process had already advanced to notice, reply, and an adjudication order under the CGST Act. The dispute depended largely on factual questions about movement of goods, supporting documents, and the claimed need for weighment before e-way bill generation. As the petition was directed only at the interception-stage statement and the adjudication order was already passed, the Court declined to examine the facts on merits and left the petitioner to pursue the available remedy against that order in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the interception-related statement and the detention proceedings was maintainable after issuance of notice, reply, and an adjudication order under the GST detention provisions.

Analysis: The dispute turned substantially on facts concerning the movement of the goods, the availability of documents such as the e-way bill, and the asserted need for weighment before generation of the e-way bill. The writ petition had been directed only against the statement recorded at the time of interception, while the statutory process under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had already progressed to a show-cause notice, reply, and an order dated 09.12.2022. In these circumstances, the Court declined to record any view on the factual controversy and held that the petitioner, if so advised, could challenge the adjudication order in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and was dismissed, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory or other lawful remedy against the adjudication order.

---