https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792375 Confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act cannot be used as a substitute for determining tax liability where the dispute concerns alleged stock discrepancy or record-keeping violations. The High Court held that the statutory route under Sections 73 or 74 must first be invoked and concluded, and initiation of Section 130 action without that prior determination is without jurisdiction. Because the notice was unlawful, the consequential confiscation order also could not stand and was quashed, while the refund claim was left to be pursued separately in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 May 2026 07:29:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792375 Confiscation proceedings under Section 130 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act cannot be used as a substitute for determining tax liability where the dispute concerns alleged stock discrepancy or record-keeping violations. The High Court held that the statutory route under Sections 73 or 74 must first be invoked and concluded, and initiation of Section 130 action without that prior determination is without jurisdiction. Because the notice was unlawful, the consequential confiscation order also could not stand and was quashed, while the refund claim was left to be pursued separately in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792375