https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395173 Confiscation of a vehicle under Section 72(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 could not be sustained without compliance with the proviso requiring the owner to be given the prescribed option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and a recorded finding that the owner knew or had reason to believe the vehicle would be used for transporting illicit liquor. As neither safeguard was shown on the record, the confiscation orders were quashed. The Court also treated continued seizure as serving no useful purpose where the vehicle could be preserved and produced if needed in the criminal case, and directed release of the vehicle. en-us Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2020 11:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395173 Confiscation of a vehicle under Section 72(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 could not be sustained without compliance with the proviso requiring the owner to be given the prescribed option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and a recorded finding that the owner knew or had reason to believe the vehicle would be used for transporting illicit liquor. As neither safeguard was shown on the record, the confiscation orders were quashed. The Court also treated continued seizure as serving no useful purpose where the vehicle could be preserved and produced if needed in the criminal case, and directed release of the vehicle. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395173