https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161458 Seizure of goods and demand for security were held unjustified where the consignment was supported by bill, invoice and form 31, and the dealer was registered. A mere letter suggesting that delivery may have been diverted to another place did not amount to independent material showing an intention to evade tax. Security could not be demanded on presumption alone, and a decision resting on conjectures and surmises was treated as unsustainable. The goods were to be released without security. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:03:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161458 Seizure of goods and demand for security were held unjustified where the consignment was supported by bill, invoice and form 31, and the dealer was registered. A mere letter suggesting that delivery may have been diverted to another place did not amount to independent material showing an intention to evade tax. Security could not be demanded on presumption alone, and a decision resting on conjectures and surmises was treated as unsustainable. The goods were to be released without security. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161458