https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769549 The HC declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST MOV-10 notice and MOV-11 order because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy and the writ relief substantially overlapped with issues pending before the appellate authority. The Court therefore refused to exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the notice and order. It also declined separate interim relief for provisional release of the goods and conveyance, noting that the petitioner had already moved the appellate authority. The Court made only prima facie observations that the supplier appeared to be non-existent and that the goods were liable to confiscation under the GST provisions, leaving those points to the appellate determination. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769549 The HC declined to entertain a writ petition challenging a GST MOV-10 notice and MOV-11 order because the petitioner had already invoked the statutory appellate remedy and the writ relief substantially overlapped with issues pending before the appellate authority. The Court therefore refused to exercise writ jurisdiction to quash the notice and order. It also declined separate interim relief for provisional release of the goods and conveyance, noting that the petitioner had already moved the appellate authority. The Court made only prima facie observations that the supplier appeared to be non-existent and that the goods were liable to confiscation under the GST provisions, leaving those points to the appellate determination. Case-Laws GST Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769549