https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371840 The court considered the legality and jurisdiction of the actions taken by Respondent No. 3 under the UPGST Act regarding the seizure and confiscation of goods. The petitioner challenged the confiscation of goods that had already been sold, arguing that the subsequent proceedings were illegal. The petitioner contended that the notice and order issued lacked jurisdiction and misinterpreted Sections 129 and 130 of the UPGST Act. The court acknowledged the complexity of the legal issues raised and allowed time for further submissions. en-us Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371840 The court considered the legality and jurisdiction of the actions taken by Respondent No. 3 under the UPGST Act regarding the seizure and confiscation of goods. The petitioner challenged the confiscation of goods that had already been sold, arguing that the subsequent proceedings were illegal. The petitioner contended that the notice and order issued lacked jurisdiction and misinterpreted Sections 129 and 130 of the UPGST Act. The court acknowledged the complexity of the legal issues raised and allowed time for further submissions. Case-Laws GST Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371840