https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771403 Seizure of goods in transit could not be sustained where the memo recorded no clear reasons for detention, and later instructions could not cure the absence of reasons in the original order. The High Court applied the principle that an administrative order must stand on the reasons recorded in it, not on post hoc justification. It further held that the GST authorities had to complete the statutory process under Section 129, including notice, valuation, tax determination and hearing, before resorting to confiscation under Section 130. Proceedings under Section 130 were therefore premature until the Section 129 procedure was first exhausted. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 May 2025 12:55:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771403 Seizure of goods in transit could not be sustained where the memo recorded no clear reasons for detention, and later instructions could not cure the absence of reasons in the original order. The High Court applied the principle that an administrative order must stand on the reasons recorded in it, not on post hoc justification. It further held that the GST authorities had to complete the statutory process under Section 129, including notice, valuation, tax determination and hearing, before resorting to confiscation under Section 130. Proceedings under Section 130 were therefore premature until the Section 129 procedure was first exhausted. Case-Laws GST Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771403