https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788672 Where the liability fixed by the first appellate authority had been satisfied, interim release of detained goods and conveyance was considered appropriate despite pending revisional proceedings. The appellate order had been modified from confiscation under Section 130 to penalty under Section 129(1)(a), and the petitioner had paid that liability. To protect revenue during revision under Section 108(1), the release was made conditional on an indemnity bond and compliance with the final revisional directions, with breach of the undertaking to be treated as contempt. The goods and conveyance were released, and the revisional challenge was left open. en-us Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Mar 2026 09:05:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788672 Where the liability fixed by the first appellate authority had been satisfied, interim release of detained goods and conveyance was considered appropriate despite pending revisional proceedings. The appellate order had been modified from confiscation under Section 130 to penalty under Section 129(1)(a), and the petitioner had paid that liability. To protect revenue during revision under Section 108(1), the release was made conditional on an indemnity bond and compliance with the final revisional directions, with breach of the undertaking to be treated as contempt. The goods and conveyance were released, and the revisional challenge was left open. Case-Laws GST Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788672