<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>GST detention and coerced statement claims rejected as disputed facts; prima facie material sustained continued custody.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98792</link>
    <description>At the investigation stage of GST detention proceedings, the Court found prima facie material supporting continued custody of the goods and conveyance, including interception of the vehicle en route to a destination different from the declared one and other investigative circumstances. The affixture of the detention order on the vehicle and office notice board, after non-appearance of the persons summoned, was not treated as illegal, and extension of time for inspection was considered a permissible statutory step. The petitioner&#039;s allegation that his statement was coerced was held to raise disputed factual questions unsuitable for Article 226 scrutiny. The writ petition was dismissed, subject to statutory remedies and a direction to furnish the detention order if the petitioner appears.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>GST detention and coerced statement claims rejected as disputed facts; prima facie material sustained continued custody.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98792</link>
      <description>At the investigation stage of GST detention proceedings, the Court found prima facie material supporting continued custody of the goods and conveyance, including interception of the vehicle en route to a destination different from the declared one and other investigative circumstances. The affixture of the detention order on the vehicle and office notice board, after non-appearance of the persons summoned, was not treated as illegal, and extension of time for inspection was considered a permissible statutory step. The petitioner&#039;s allegation that his statement was coerced was held to raise disputed factual questions unsuitable for Article 226 scrutiny. The writ petition was dismissed, subject to statutory remedies and a direction to furnish the detention order if the petitioner appears.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>