https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160500 Detention of a goods vehicle under section 29(6) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act was held invalid because the original order did not record the statutory satisfaction required for detention to prevent tax evasion. A reference to an alleged telephonic communication about arrears was insufficient, and fresh grounds introduced in the counter-affidavit could not cure the defect. The order was also vitiated because the statutory authority acted under dictation of superior officers rather than exercising independent discretion. The writ petition was therefore allowed. en-us Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160500 Detention of a goods vehicle under section 29(6) of the A.P.G.S.T. Act was held invalid because the original order did not record the statutory satisfaction required for detention to prevent tax evasion. A reference to an alleged telephonic communication about arrears was insufficient, and fresh grounds introduced in the counter-affidavit could not cure the defect. The order was also vitiated because the statutory authority acted under dictation of superior officers rather than exercising independent discretion. The writ petition was therefore allowed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160500