<?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>2018 (3) TMI 1018 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357315</link>
    <description>Where goods detained under Section 129 had already been released under an interim order, the writ petition on detention itself no longer required further adjudication. The remaining statutory course was to direct completion of the Section 129 adjudication within a fixed period, and the petition was disposed of with a direction to complete that adjudication within one month from receipt of the judgment copy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 1018 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357315</link>
      <description>Where goods detained under Section 129 had already been released under an interim order, the writ petition on detention itself no longer required further adjudication. The remaining statutory course was to direct completion of the Section 129 adjudication within a fixed period, and the petition was disposed of with a direction to complete that adjudication within one month from receipt of the judgment copy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357315</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>