https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149834 Section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act required confiscation to be pursued by the officer who lawfully seized the goods after hearing and enquiry; a Deputy Commissioner could not substitute himself for the seizing officer without express authority, so the confiscation order was without jurisdiction. The completed assessments, which accepted the disputed transaction and did not levy tax on that basis, also undermined the basis for confiscation proceedings founded on alleged clandestine trade. The writ petition was allowed, the confiscation order was quashed, and the security furnished was directed to be returned. en-us Wed, 11 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 May 2013 11:45:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149834 Section 28(6) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act required confiscation to be pursued by the officer who lawfully seized the goods after hearing and enquiry; a Deputy Commissioner could not substitute himself for the seizing officer without express authority, so the confiscation order was without jurisdiction. The completed assessments, which accepted the disputed transaction and did not levy tax on that basis, also undermined the basis for confiscation proceedings founded on alleged clandestine trade. The writ petition was allowed, the confiscation order was quashed, and the security furnished was directed to be returned. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 11 Mar 1970 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=149834