https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308722 Writ court declined interlocutory release of seized cash, holding that the dispute should first be considered by the competent administrative authorities rather than resolved in writ proceedings. The petitioner's explanation for the cash and the Revenue's account of ongoing inspection and related proceedings were left for determination by the authority. The court instead directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's pending application, hear the petitioners, and pass orders within three weeks, leaving the merits of the seizure and any underlying factual issues to the administrative process. en-us Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 11:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308722 Writ court declined interlocutory release of seized cash, holding that the dispute should first be considered by the competent administrative authorities rather than resolved in writ proceedings. The petitioner's explanation for the cash and the Revenue's account of ongoing inspection and related proceedings were left for determination by the authority. The court instead directed the first respondent to consider the petitioner's pending application, hear the petitioners, and pass orders within three weeks, leaving the merits of the seizure and any underlying factual issues to the administrative process. Case-Laws GST Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308722