https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161299 The Tribunal upheld its decisions on all issues, dismissing both revisions. The estimated total value of goods was Rs. 8,00,000, with security deposits required for goods covered by the trip sheet and in excess. The Trade Tax Officer had jurisdiction to seize goods for fraudulent transit pass use. The applicant's explanations for stopping at specific locations were deemed inadequate. Section 28-A of the Act was found applicable, allowing seizure if goods were intended for in-state sale. A cash security deposit of Rs. 92,500 was mandated for goods release due to false documentation. en-us Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:29:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161299 The Tribunal upheld its decisions on all issues, dismissing both revisions. The estimated total value of goods was Rs. 8,00,000, with security deposits required for goods covered by the trip sheet and in excess. The Trade Tax Officer had jurisdiction to seize goods for fraudulent transit pass use. The applicant's explanations for stopping at specific locations were deemed inadequate. Section 28-A of the Act was found applicable, allowing seizure if goods were intended for in-state sale. A cash security deposit of Rs. 92,500 was mandated for goods release due to false documentation. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161299