https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450899 The dominant issue was whether a prohibitory order issued under the first proviso to s.67(2) CGST/WBGST Act could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction without the taxable person first invoking the statutory release mechanism. Relying on SC authority that release of seized goods must be sought under the Act, the HC held that the petitioner's failure to apply under s.67(6) disentitled it to immediate writ relief; while noting that s.67(7) prevents indefinite continuation of prohibition orders, the court declined interference at that stage. The writ was disposed of with liberty to apply under s.67(6), directing the proper officer to consider such application in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 14:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450899 The dominant issue was whether a prohibitory order issued under the first proviso to s.67(2) CGST/WBGST Act could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction without the taxable person first invoking the statutory release mechanism. Relying on SC authority that release of seized goods must be sought under the Act, the HC held that the petitioner's failure to apply under s.67(6) disentitled it to immediate writ relief; while noting that s.67(7) prevents indefinite continuation of prohibition orders, the court declined interference at that stage. The writ was disposed of with liberty to apply under s.67(6), directing the proper officer to consider such application in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Mon, 11 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450899