Writ jurisdiction declined where GST challenge overlapped with a pending statutory appeal; no provisional release relief granted.

The HC declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST MOV-10 notice and MOV-11 order because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy and the writ relief substantially overlapped with issues pending before the appellate authority. The Court therefore refused to exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the notice and order. It also declined separate interim relief for provisional release of the goods and conveyance, noting that the petitioner had already moved the appellate authority. The Court made only prima facie observations that the supplier appeared to be non-existent and that the goods were liable to confiscation under the GST provisions, leaving those points to the appellate determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST MOV-10 notice and GST MOV-11 order was liable to be entertained despite the pendency of an appeal before the appellate authority, and whether any interim relief for provisional release of the goods and conveyance was warranted.

Analysis: The petitioner had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy against the impugned order, and the reliefs sought in the writ petition substantially overlapped with the issues pending before the appellate authority. In such circumstances, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction for quashing the notice and order. As regards provisional release, the petitioner had already moved the appellate authority, so no separate adjudication was considered necessary at that stage. The Court also noted, prima facie, that the supplier appeared to be a non-existent entity and that the goods were liable to confiscation under the GST provisions, though these observations were expressly kept subject to the appellate determination.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the challenge to the GST MOV-10 notice and GST MOV-11 order failed. No separate relief for provisional release was granted by the Court.

---