Alternative remedy bars writ challenge to GST detention order, while statutory release under Section 129(1)(a) remains available.

An efficacious alternative appellate remedy barred writ interference with the challenge to the order passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, so that challenge was left to be pursued through the statutory remedy. At the same time, the Court recognised that detained goods could still be sought for release by invoking Section 129(1)(a), subject to the petitioners establishing their entitlement to maintain such an application. Permission was granted to file the application within the stipulated time, and the respondents were directed to decide it expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition could be entertained against the order passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 in view of the availability of an alternative appellate remedy; (ii) whether the petitioners could be permitted to invoke Section 129(1)(a) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for release of the detained goods.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition could be entertained against the order passed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 in view of the availability of an alternative appellate remedy.

Analysis: The petition challenged the order under Section 129(3), but the Court found that an efficacious alternative remedy was available in respect of that challenge. On that basis, it declined to entertain the writ petition to that extent.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order under Section 129(3) was not entertained and the petitioners were relegated to the alternative remedy.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners could be permitted to invoke Section 129(1)(a) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for release of the detained goods.

Analysis: The Court accepted that the petitioners were entitled to seek release of the goods by invoking Section 129(1)(a), subject to establishing their right to maintain such an application. As no formal application had yet been filed, permission was granted to file one before the respondents within the stipulated time, and the respondents were directed to decide it expeditiously.

Conclusion: The petitioners were permitted to apply under Section 129(1)(a), subject to establishing their right to maintain the application, and the respondents were directed to dispose of it expeditiously if filed within time.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by declining interference with the Section 129(3) challenge while preserving and facilitating the petitioners' statutory remedy under Section 129(1)(a) for seeking release of the detained goods.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, writ interference with an order under Section 129(3) of the GST law is not warranted, but the statutory right to seek release of detained goods under Section 129(1)(a) remains available if properly invoked.

---