Writ petitions dismissed for challenging goods seizure jurisdiction as alternative remedies available through proper proceedings

HC dismissed twenty-two writ petitions challenging authorities' jurisdiction to seize goods not in transit. Petitioners argued orders were passed without jurisdiction, but court declined to re-examine this issue as it was previously addressed by coordinate bench. Court held writ petition against show cause notice was inappropriate, emphasizing it should not act as assessing authority. Petitioners had alternative remedy to present case before appropriate authorities. Court referenced precedent that writ courts should not interfere in disputed questions of fact, concluding petitioners must address show cause notices through proper proceedings rather than writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of authorities to seize goods not in transit.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court involved the disposal of twenty-two writ petitions with a common question of law. The issue revolved around the jurisdiction of authorities to seize goods not in transit. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed without jurisdiction, but the court refrained from re-examining this aspect. The court referenced a previous case, 'The State of Punjab Vs. M/s Shiv Enterprises and others,' where it was held that the writ court should not interfere in disputed questions of facts. The court emphasized that it is not its role to act as the Assessing Authority and that the petitioner should present relevant material to the authorities to address the show cause notice. The judgment highlighted that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice and setting it aside, as the matter should be considered in the appropriate proceeding. The court concluded that the petitioner had an alternative remedy to present the case before the authorities, and hence, dismissed the writ petitions.

The court noted that the argument regarding the authorities having no jurisdiction to seize goods not in transit was examined in a previous judgment by a co-ordinate Bench. As the issue had already been addressed in the prior judgment, the court declined to re-examine it. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that all pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---