https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420800 Seizure of goods and the conveyance was challenged on the ground that the consignee address stated in the tax invoice and e-way bill was not reflected as an additional place of business in the dealer's GST registration, leading the authorities to treat the movement as irregular. The HC held that the consignee address had since been included in the GST registration, evidencing a post facto regularisation consistent with the transaction documents, and that the record did not disclose any intention to evade tax. Consequently, the seizure was held unjustified and the writ petition was allowed. en-us Mon, 04 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420800 Seizure of goods and the conveyance was challenged on the ground that the consignee address stated in the tax invoice and e-way bill was not reflected as an additional place of business in the dealer's GST registration, leading the authorities to treat the movement as irregular. The HC held that the consignee address had since been included in the GST registration, evidencing a post facto regularisation consistent with the transaction documents, and that the record did not disclose any intention to evade tax. Consequently, the seizure was held unjustified and the writ petition was allowed. Case-Laws GST Mon, 04 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420800