https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793001 The Allahabad HC noted that undervaluation, linked to Section 122(1)(i) and requiring determination under Section 74 of the CGST Act, was not shown to be legally interchangeable with clandestine removal under Section 132(1)(a), and that the remand order mixed the two allegations mechanically without proper consideration of the defence. It also found non-compliance with mandatory arrest safeguards, including supply of grounds of arrest, intimation to a relative or friend, recording of the place of arrest, and DIN-related requirements. On that basis, the article states that the arrest, remand and custody were illegal, and that the remand order and consequential proceedings were quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 03 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jun 2026 08:42:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793001 The Allahabad HC noted that undervaluation, linked to Section 122(1)(i) and requiring determination under Section 74 of the CGST Act, was not shown to be legally interchangeable with clandestine removal under Section 132(1)(a), and that the remand order mixed the two allegations mechanically without proper consideration of the defence. It also found non-compliance with mandatory arrest safeguards, including supply of grounds of arrest, intimation to a relative or friend, recording of the place of arrest, and DIN-related requirements. On that basis, the article states that the arrest, remand and custody were illegal, and that the remand order and consequential proceedings were quashed, with liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Fri, 03 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793001