https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396327 A separate writ against a consequential seizure order was not entertained because the principal seizure order was already under challenge in a pending writ petition. The court treated the second writ as misconceived, since the petitioner had admitted that the primary order remained sub judice, and dismissed it on that basis. It then allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and granted leave to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the applicable GST law, recording the matter as withdrawn for that purpose. en-us Fri, 26 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:58:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396327 A separate writ against a consequential seizure order was not entertained because the principal seizure order was already under challenge in a pending writ petition. The court treated the second writ as misconceived, since the petitioner had admitted that the primary order remained sub judice, and dismissed it on that basis. It then allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition and granted leave to pursue the statutory appellate remedy under the applicable GST law, recording the matter as withdrawn for that purpose. Case-Laws GST Fri, 26 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396327