https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780644 HC dismissed the petition and upheld detention under Section 129(3) CGST Act, finding no illegality in seizure where, at interception, requisite documents for goods sent for job work were not produced despite subsequent production of an e-way bill before the seizure order. The court held the issue aligned with prior HC authority that absence of a delivery challan and e-way bill at interception justified proceedings by tax authorities. Consequently, the impugned orders were sustained and no interference was warranted. en-us Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Nov 2025 08:13:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780644 HC dismissed the petition and upheld detention under Section 129(3) CGST Act, finding no illegality in seizure where, at interception, requisite documents for goods sent for job work were not produced despite subsequent production of an e-way bill before the seizure order. The court held the issue aligned with prior HC authority that absence of a delivery challan and e-way bill at interception justified proceedings by tax authorities. Consequently, the impugned orders were sustained and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws GST Thu, 18 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780644