Requirement of written reasons for extension under Section 110(2) and validity of seizure raise procedural compliance and factual authenticity questions; those factual disputes-document genuineness, timelines, alleged tampering, forensic tests and mobile tower data-are for the Adjudicating Authority to determine, not for interlocutory writ relief. The High Court found no apparent reason to doubt affidavits but declined to usurp the statutory fact finding role, refused immediate release of seized goods for lack of demonstrated irreparable harm, and disposed of the writ appeal by denying interim interference with the seizure while SCN proceedings continue.
Requirement of written reasons for extension under Section 110(2) and validity of seizure raise procedural compliance and factual authenticity questions; those factual disputes-document genuineness, timelines, alleged tampering, forensic tests and mobile tower data-are for the Adjudicating Authority to determine, not for interlocutory writ relief. The High Court found no apparent reason to doubt affidavits but declined to usurp the statutory fact finding role, refused immediate release of seized goods for lack of demonstrated irreparable harm, and disposed of the writ appeal by denying interim interference with the seizure while SCN proceedings continue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
