https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162175 A transporter brought within the statutory definition was treated as entitled to challenge seizure of goods in his possession, because the governing Act did not bar such relief. On the merits, the Tribunal held that the interception and verification power under section 68 and rule 212(9) was limited to checking compliance with prescribed transport conditions and the particulars in the way-bill. It did not authorise seizure merely because the invoice value appeared below market value, and an alleged fake or non-existent consignor could not justify seizure absent express statutory authority. The seizure and penalty orders were therefore held illegal and invalid. en-us Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:08:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162175 A transporter brought within the statutory definition was treated as entitled to challenge seizure of goods in his possession, because the governing Act did not bar such relief. On the merits, the Tribunal held that the interception and verification power under section 68 and rule 212(9) was limited to checking compliance with prescribed transport conditions and the particulars in the way-bill. It did not authorise seizure merely because the invoice value appeared below market value, and an alleged fake or non-existent consignor could not justify seizure absent express statutory authority. The seizure and penalty orders were therefore held illegal and invalid. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162175