https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347992 Search and seizure of areca nuts stored in the petitioners' godown was examined against the claimed source of authority under GST law and Section 102 CrPC. The record suggested the dispute was essentially one of tax liability, not stolen or suspiciously held goods, and the Court formed a prima facie view that the BIEO team may have acted beyond its jurisdiction. To prevent business disruption, interim release of the seized goods was directed on protective financial conditions, including furnishing a bank guarantee and verification by the tax authorities. The seizure was not finally decided on merits. en-us Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Apr 2018 12:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347992 Search and seizure of areca nuts stored in the petitioners' godown was examined against the claimed source of authority under GST law and Section 102 CrPC. The record suggested the dispute was essentially one of tax liability, not stolen or suspiciously held goods, and the Court formed a prima facie view that the BIEO team may have acted beyond its jurisdiction. To prevent business disruption, interim release of the seized goods was directed on protective financial conditions, including furnishing a bank guarantee and verification by the tax authorities. The seizure was not finally decided on merits. Case-Laws GST Wed, 09 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347992