https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=15037 Misapplication of Section 129(3) in goods seizure proceedings frequently results in final orders being set aside where procedural safeguards are not observed and no fraudulent intent exists. The article highlights systemic enforcement assumptions that legal provisions bind only taxpayers, the vulnerability of small and medium enterprises to provisional orders, and the need for supervisory oversight and officer training, illustrated by a division bench requiring remedial training for an assistant commissioner unfamiliar with the provision. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:20:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=15037 Misapplication of Section 129(3) in goods seizure proceedings frequently results in final orders being set aside where procedural safeguards are not observed and no fraudulent intent exists. The article highlights systemic enforcement assumptions that legal provisions bind only taxpayers, the vulnerability of small and medium enterprises to provisional orders, and the need for supervisory oversight and officer training, illustrated by a division bench requiring remedial training for an assistant commissioner unfamiliar with the provision. Articles Goods and Services Tax - GST Wed, 03 Sep 2025 08:20:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=15037