https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235878 Concurrent findings that the transit declaration did not match the vehicle carrying the consignment, that the required declaration did not accompany the goods, and that supporting documents were not produced justified the seizure and demand for security. The revisional court found no illegality or perversity in those factual findings, and held that no substantial question of law arose for interference. The seizure order and security demand were therefore upheld, and the revision was dismissed. en-us Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jul 2013 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235878 Concurrent findings that the transit declaration did not match the vehicle carrying the consignment, that the required declaration did not accompany the goods, and that supporting documents were not produced justified the seizure and demand for security. The revisional court found no illegality or perversity in those factual findings, and held that no substantial question of law arose for interference. The seizure order and security demand were therefore upheld, and the revision was dismissed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235878