https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471967 Route mismatch in goods transport supported an inference of intended unauthorised delivery where the vehicle travelled substantially beyond the stated destination from the unloading point. Precedents involving an inadvertent wrong route by a driver unfamiliar with the local language were factually distinguishable. Writ jurisdiction was not considered appropriate for reassessing the route evidence and factual controversy, which could instead be pursued through the statutory appellate process. The impugned demand therefore remained undisturbed pending any appellate challenge. en-us Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Sep 2026 19:22:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471967 Route mismatch in goods transport supported an inference of intended unauthorised delivery where the vehicle travelled substantially beyond the stated destination from the unloading point. Precedents involving an inadvertent wrong route by a driver unfamiliar with the local language were factually distinguishable. Writ jurisdiction was not considered appropriate for reassessing the route evidence and factual controversy, which could instead be pursued through the statutory appellate process. The impugned demand therefore remained undisturbed pending any appellate challenge. Case-Laws GST Mon, 21 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471967