Article 226 interference in GST detention matters is limited where prima facie contravention and factual disputes require investigation.

Writ interference under Article 226 was declined where detention of goods and vehicle under GST law showed a prima facie contravention, including transport in a direction opposite to the declared destination. The Court treated the petitioner's denial of ownership and the allegation of coercion in recording the statement as factual disputes requiring detailed investigation, which could not be resolved in writ proceedings. It also noted that the detention order was stated to have been affixed on the vehicle and that statutory remedies remained available. On that basis, no immediate direction for release of the consignment or conveyance was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the detention and continued custody of the goods and vehicle, and direct release of the consignment and conveyance.

Analysis: The material on record disclosed a prima facie case that the transportation was in contravention of the GST provisions, including the fact that the intercepted vehicle was moving in a direction opposite to the declared destination. The petitioner's denial of ownership of the goods and the allegation of coercion in recording the statement raised factual disputes requiring detailed investigation, which could not be resolved in writ proceedings. The Court also found that the detention order was claimed to have been affixed on the vehicle, and that the procedural course adopted by the respondents did not call for interference at that stage. The existence of statutory remedies was also relevant.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed.

---