https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355187 The court held that the seizure order was passed under the IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act, not the U.P.G.S.T. Act, clarifying the jurisdictional aspect of seizure. Regarding the classification of seized goods as 'Tasla' or 'Ghamella,' the court ordered the release of the goods pending confirmation of their classification and taxation status, requiring an indemnity bond and security. The judgment balanced the jurisdictional issue and tax implications, showing a fair approach to resolving the dispute. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:35:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355187 The court held that the seizure order was passed under the IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act, not the U.P.G.S.T. Act, clarifying the jurisdictional aspect of seizure. Regarding the classification of seized goods as 'Tasla' or 'Ghamella,' the court ordered the release of the goods pending confirmation of their classification and taxation status, requiring an indemnity bond and security. The judgment balanced the jurisdictional issue and tax implications, showing a fair approach to resolving the dispute. Case-Laws GST Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355187