https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403801 Writ jurisdiction was treated as inappropriate to interrupt pending GST proceedings for release of seized goods and conveyance where the matter remained at the MOV-10 stage and no final order had yet been passed. The Court directed the authority to complete the proceedings, required the petitioner to appear and present his case when notice was issued, and noted that any final MOV-11 order could be challenged through the statutory appellate remedy. The relief for immediate release of the goods was therefore not granted, with the petitioner left to pursue the pending proceedings and appeal mechanism under the GST law. en-us Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403801 Writ jurisdiction was treated as inappropriate to interrupt pending GST proceedings for release of seized goods and conveyance where the matter remained at the MOV-10 stage and no final order had yet been passed. The Court directed the authority to complete the proceedings, required the petitioner to appear and present his case when notice was issued, and noted that any final MOV-11 order could be challenged through the statutory appellate remedy. The relief for immediate release of the goods was therefore not granted, with the petitioner left to pursue the pending proceedings and appeal mechanism under the GST law. Case-Laws GST Fri, 29 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403801