https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763039 The Patna HC quashed a seizure order dated 14.08.2020 for violating Customs Act provisions. The court held that the second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure due to established business transactions between parties. The HC ruled that petitioners were not required to exhaust alternative remedies under Section 128 as statutory provisions under Section 110 were not properly complied with. The court determined that seizure memo cannot be read with Panchnama to establish reasons for seizure, as the seizing officer must disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo itself. The seizure order was found unsustainable and was quashed. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763039 The Patna HC quashed a seizure order dated 14.08.2020 for violating Customs Act provisions. The court held that the second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure due to established business transactions between parties. The HC ruled that petitioners were not required to exhaust alternative remedies under Section 128 as statutory provisions under Section 110 were not properly complied with. The court determined that seizure memo cannot be read with Panchnama to establish reasons for seizure, as the seizing officer must disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo itself. The seizure order was found unsustainable and was quashed. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 05 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763039