https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766545 Where the investigation period had been validly extended under GST law, reliance on the original time limit to seek release of seized gold failed. The confiscation notice also showed prima facie material that the goods were dealt with without valid registration and without supporting tax invoices or other required documents. Once proceedings under Section 130 had commenced, provisional release under Section 67(6) was not available at that stage, and the proper remedy lay under Section 130(2). The request for provisional release was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. en-us Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766545 Where the investigation period had been validly extended under GST law, reliance on the original time limit to seek release of seized gold failed. The confiscation notice also showed prima facie material that the goods were dealt with without valid registration and without supporting tax invoices or other required documents. Once proceedings under Section 130 had commenced, provisional release under Section 67(6) was not available at that stage, and the proper remedy lay under Section 130(2). The request for provisional release was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766545