https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767093 HC allowed the challenge and held that the respondent's unilateral reliance on non-public extracts did not satisfy Section 67(7) CGST; no notice or opportunity to be heard was given before extending the seizure. The court found the officers' failure to value goods despite cooperation did not constitute sufficient cause, and notices under Section 130 cannot substitute for Section 67(7) protections. Direction given to release the seized goods listed in the 17.06.2021 stock summary upon the applicant depositing the valuation amount specified in the same letter. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767093 HC allowed the challenge and held that the respondent's unilateral reliance on non-public extracts did not satisfy Section 67(7) CGST; no notice or opportunity to be heard was given before extending the seizure. The court found the officers' failure to value goods despite cooperation did not constitute sufficient cause, and notices under Section 130 cannot substitute for Section 67(7) protections. Direction given to release the seized goods listed in the 17.06.2021 stock summary upon the applicant depositing the valuation amount specified in the same letter. Case-Laws GST Mon, 03 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767093