https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413783 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the immediate release of the goods covered by the confiscation order. It emphasized that ownership is determined based on the invoice, rejecting the department's argument of a hidden transaction. The court held that the petitioner, as the invoice generator, was the rightful owner and entitled to the goods upon payment of fines and penalties, in line with Section 130 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to legal mandates and principles in ownership disputes. en-us Fri, 03 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413783 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the immediate release of the goods covered by the confiscation order. It emphasized that ownership is determined based on the invoice, rejecting the department's argument of a hidden transaction. The court held that the petitioner, as the invoice generator, was the rightful owner and entitled to the goods upon payment of fines and penalties, in line with Section 130 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to legal mandates and principles in ownership disputes. Case-Laws GST Fri, 03 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413783