https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310037 The High Court found that the direction issued by the Writ Court to pass an order in a specific manner regarding the release of seized goods was not aligned with the relief sought by the petitioners, leading to the admission of the writ appeals and an order of interim stay. The Court also noted that the Writ Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into factual aspects before the adjudication process. Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and S. Ananthi addressed these issues, emphasizing the boundaries of the Writ Court's interference and allowing for further proceedings on a specified date. en-us Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Oct 2023 07:19:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310037 The High Court found that the direction issued by the Writ Court to pass an order in a specific manner regarding the release of seized goods was not aligned with the relief sought by the petitioners, leading to the admission of the writ appeals and an order of interim stay. The Court also noted that the Writ Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into factual aspects before the adjudication process. Justices T.S. Sivagnanam and S. Ananthi addressed these issues, emphasizing the boundaries of the Writ Court's interference and allowing for further proceedings on a specified date. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 30 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310037