Fake AI-generated precedents vitiate adjudication, with unverified citations contaminating the decision-making process and undermining the rule of law...
HC held that the invoice produced in favour of the petitioner and corroborative documentary evidence (wedding card) sufficiently established the legitimacy of the seized goods; the State/Department failed to impugn the invoice or the marriage fact. The December 31, 2018 Circular was held applicable; the detention and seizure could not be sustained. The impugned order dated July 9, 2025 was quashed and set aside. Authorities are directed to undertake the statutory exercise under Section 129(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within three weeks and to release the goods to the petitioner upon payment of the penalty prescribed under that provision. Petition disposed of.
HC held that the invoice produced in favour of the petitioner and corroborative documentary evidence (wedding card) sufficiently established the legitimacy of the seized goods; the State/Department failed to impugn the invoice or the marriage fact. The December 31, 2018 Circular was held applicable; the detention and seizure could not be sustained. The impugned order dated July 9, 2025 was quashed and set aside. Authorities are directed to undertake the statutory exercise under Section 129(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 within three weeks and to release the goods to the petitioner upon payment of the penalty prescribed under that provision. Petition disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
