https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777270 HC upheld detention and seizure orders, finding the impugned transactions bogus and records not reflecting purchases on the portal. The Court held officers appointed under the State GST are authorized to act as proper officers for IGST and CGST and that absence of a separate notification under section 4 of the IGST Act did not invalidate their authority. Where invoices or specified documents were not produced, initiation under section 129(1)(b) was proper. The factual findings of fictitious transactions were unchallenged, and the petition was dismissed. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777270 HC upheld detention and seizure orders, finding the impugned transactions bogus and records not reflecting purchases on the portal. The Court held officers appointed under the State GST are authorized to act as proper officers for IGST and CGST and that absence of a separate notification under section 4 of the IGST Act did not invalidate their authority. Where invoices or specified documents were not produced, initiation under section 129(1)(b) was proper. The factual findings of fictitious transactions were unchallenged, and the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws GST Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777270