https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105630 A finally determined question of title to goods cannot be reopened in later proceedings between the same parties. Here, the Tribunal had already held that the appellant was the owner of the goods and entitled to seek release, and that finding had attained finality. The revenue authorities, including on remand, could not reject ownership on the contrary footing, and the High Court could not re-decide the same issue. Ownership was also not displaced merely because the transport document named the purchaser. The seizure and attachment based on a contrary assumption of title were therefore unsustainable, and the sale proceeds had to be released to the appellant. en-us Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Dec 2015 18:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105630 A finally determined question of title to goods cannot be reopened in later proceedings between the same parties. Here, the Tribunal had already held that the appellant was the owner of the goods and entitled to seek release, and that finding had attained finality. The revenue authorities, including on remand, could not reject ownership on the contrary footing, and the High Court could not re-decide the same issue. Ownership was also not displaced merely because the transport document named the purchaser. The seizure and attachment based on a contrary assumption of title were therefore unsustainable, and the sale proceeds had to be released to the appellant. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105630