https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160884 Writ interference was refused where goods seized in transit were found to be accompanied by documents not meeting statutory requirements and not showing proper tax payment. The High Court treated the assessing and revisional authorities' factual conclusions as binding in writ jurisdiction and declined to reappreciate documents produced for the first time in revision. It further noted that once the authorities recorded contravention of section 29-A(8) and exercised discretion to impose penalty, no jurisdictional error was shown. The challenge to the seizure and penalty therefore failed. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:22:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160884 Writ interference was refused where goods seized in transit were found to be accompanied by documents not meeting statutory requirements and not showing proper tax payment. The High Court treated the assessing and revisional authorities' factual conclusions as binding in writ jurisdiction and declined to reappreciate documents produced for the first time in revision. It further noted that once the authorities recorded contravention of section 29-A(8) and exercised discretion to impose penalty, no jurisdictional error was shown. The challenge to the seizure and penalty therefore failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 21 Nov 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=160884