CGST confiscation disputes should ordinarily go to statutory appeal, with jurisdictional objections and delay issues open before the appellate forum.

Confiscation under the CGST Act was treated as a matter to be pursued through the statutory appeal under Section 107 rather than by direct writ challenge. The HC noted that the appellant should avail that appellate remedy against the Section 130 confiscation order, and that jurisdictional objections could also be urged before the Appellate Authority. It further indicated that, if the appeal is filed within two weeks, delay should not be objected to, and left the request for interim release of goods for consideration by the Appellate Authority. The writ appeal was disposed of without interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ appellant, challenged against an order of confiscation under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy under Section 107; and whether jurisdictional objections and a request relating to delay in filing appeal could be permitted to be raised before the Appellate Authority.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an order of confiscation passed under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that an appeal lies under Section 107 of the Act and agreed with the view that the writ appellant should pursue that remedy. In the peculiar facts, the Court observed that the jurisdictional objections raised in the writ proceedings may also be urged before the Appellate Authority, and that if the appeal is filed within two weeks, delay should not be objected to. The request for interim relief for release of goods was also left open to be considered by the Appellate Authority.

Outcome: The writ appeal was disposed of without interference, with the appellant relegated to the appellate remedy and permitted to raise all contentions before the Appellate Authority.

---