https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156270 The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of seizure made under section 28(3), and directed the respondent to return the seized documents to the petitioner within two weeks. The court found the seizure illegal as the respondent failed to follow the correct procedure under section 28A(3A) applicable to carriers and wrongly invoked section 28(3) meant for dealers registered under the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed legal procedures and provisions specific to entities like carriers to protect the rights of businesses and individuals involved. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:24:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156270 The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of seizure made under section 28(3), and directed the respondent to return the seized documents to the petitioner within two weeks. The court found the seizure illegal as the respondent failed to follow the correct procedure under section 28A(3A) applicable to carriers and wrongly invoked section 28(3) meant for dealers registered under the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed legal procedures and provisions specific to entities like carriers to protect the rights of businesses and individuals involved. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 01 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156270