GST detention proceedings survive writ review where prima facie inconsistencies and disputed coercion claims do not justify immediate release.

GST detention of goods and conveyance was not interfered with in writ jurisdiction where the record showed a prima facie basis for proceedings, including interception of the vehicle away from the declared destination and inconsistencies in the supporting invoices and stated transactions. Allegations that the petitioner's statement was coerced raised disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved on writ review, especially where summons had been issued and service attempts were recorded before the statement was taken. The detention order and extension of inspection time were treated as procedurally supported on the record, and immediate release of the goods and vehicle was not justified. The writ challenge therefore failed, leaving the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

---

---

Issues: Whether the detention and continued custody of the goods and conveyance under the GST proceedings warranted interference in writ jurisdiction, and whether the alleged coerced statement and related objections justified immediate release of the goods and vehicle.

Analysis: The materials disclosed a strong prima facie basis for the proceedings, including interception of the vehicle while travelling in a direction opposite to the declared destination, inconsistencies in the petitioner's claimed business transactions, and investigation results suggesting possible mismatch between the declared consignments and supporting invoices. The alleged coercion in recording the petitioner's statement raised disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved in writ proceedings, particularly when the record showed issuance and service attempts of summons and subsequent recording of statement. The procedure adopted for detention and extension of inspection time was also found to be supported by the record, and the challenge to the detention order did not establish illegality warranting interference at this stage.

Conclusion: The request for writ relief was not made out; the detention proceedings were allowed to continue and the petitioner's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was rejected at the threshold, leaving the petitioner to pursue the available statutory remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the record discloses a prima facie basis for detention under GST and the challenge depends on disputed factual assertions of coercion or illegality, the High Court will not ordinarily exercise writ jurisdiction to immediate release or quash the proceedings.

---