https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343871 The court found that the first respondent was unjustified in detaining the goods based on alleged discrepancies in the number of units and an old invoice number. The court held that the discrepancies were unfounded as the invoice clearly indicated the delivery schedule of the units, and the petitioner had paid the necessary tax. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, the goods detention notice was set aside, and the first respondent was directed to release the goods without costs awarded. en-us Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 15:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343871 The court found that the first respondent was unjustified in detaining the goods based on alleged discrepancies in the number of units and an old invoice number. The court held that the discrepancies were unfounded as the invoice clearly indicated the delivery schedule of the units, and the petitioner had paid the necessary tax. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed, the goods detention notice was set aside, and the first respondent was directed to release the goods without costs awarded. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 24 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343871