Goods and vehicle detention during GST transit, with confiscation started via MOV-10/MOV-11 without s.129 notice; writ disposed for appeal.

Detention of goods and conveyance was challenged on the ground that the proper officer, without issuing notice under s.129(3) CGST Act or determining penalty under s.129, directly initiated confiscation proceedings under s.130 by issuing GST MOV-10 and MOV-11. The HC held that an efficacious appellate remedy was available and directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal, expressly permitting all contentions, including the propriety of invoking MOV-10/MOV-11, to be raised before the appellate authority; the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that if the appeal is filed within 10 days, it shall be decided on merits within 12 weeks.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the Court should exercise writ jurisdiction to adjudicate the challenge to detention and confiscation actions under the GST framework when the petitioner proposes to avail the statutory appellate remedy against the confiscation proceedings.

(ii) What consequential directions should be issued to ensure expeditious and merits-based adjudication by the appellate authority, including consideration of the propriety of invoking confiscation proceedings (Forms GST MOV-10 and GST MOV-11).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Exercise of writ jurisdiction vis-à-vis availability of statutory appeal

Legal framework (as discussed): The petition sought to quash (a) detention in Form GST MOV-06 stated to be passed under Section 129(1) and (b) show cause notice in Form GST MOV-10 and confiscation order in Form GST MOV-11 stated to be under Section 130. The Court noted the petitioner's statement that it would file an appeal challenging Forms GST MOV-10 and GST MOV-11 before the appellate authority.

Interpretation and reasoning: In view of the petitioner's expressed intention to pursue the appellate remedy against the confiscation notice and order, the Court chose not to examine the merits of the detention/confiscation dispute in writ proceedings. The Court explicitly stated that it had not gone into the merits and that rights and contentions were kept open for adjudication in appeal.

Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and to raise all contentions taken in the writ petition before that authority, without any adjudication on merits by the Court.

Issue (ii): Directions to the appellate authority on merits-based and time-bound disposal; examination of propriety of Forms GST MOV-10 and GST MOV-11

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court's directions were framed around the filing of the appeal and its disposal "on merits, in accordance with law," and specifically directed examination of whether invocation of Form GST MOV-10 and Form GST MOV-11 was appropriate.

Interpretation and reasoning: To balance disposal of the writ petition with effective access to the statutory remedy, the Court set a conditional timeline: if the appeal is filed within 10 days from receipt of the order, the appellate authority must decide it within 12 weeks. The Court further required the appellate authority to examine the "aspects" concerning the appropriateness of invoking confiscation proceedings through Forms GST MOV-10 and GST MOV-11. The Court preserved the petitioner's right to challenge any adverse appellate order before the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal on merits within 12 weeks (if filed within 10 days), and to specifically examine whether resort to Forms GST MOV-10 and GST MOV-11 was appropriate; further challenge to the appellate outcome was expressly left open.

---