<?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 (4) TMI 807 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358696</link>
    <description>Inter-State movement of goods is governed by the Integrated GST and Central GST framework, including the Central prescription of documents required during transit. Where no Central notification under Rule 138 prescribed T.D.F. Form-1 or an equivalent document, a State notification could not impose that requirement on an inter-State consignment. The invoice and accompanying documents established the inter-State transaction, identified the goods&#039; origin and destination, and showed payment of Integrated GST. Cross-empowerment of State officers did not permit application of an inapplicable State rule, and no intent to evade tax was established. Detention, seizure, and consequential tax and penalty action therefore lacked a valid legal basis; the goods were to be released.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517090" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 807 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358696</link>
      <description>Inter-State movement of goods is governed by the Integrated GST and Central GST framework, including the Central prescription of documents required during transit. Where no Central notification under Rule 138 prescribed T.D.F. Form-1 or an equivalent document, a State notification could not impose that requirement on an inter-State consignment. The invoice and accompanying documents established the inter-State transaction, identified the goods&#039; origin and destination, and showed payment of Integrated GST. Cross-empowerment of State officers did not permit application of an inapplicable State rule, and no intent to evade tax was established. Detention, seizure, and consequential tax and penalty action therefore lacked a valid legal basis; the goods were to be released.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>