<?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 1142 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359031</link>
    <description>Goods detained under the GST laws had already been released after payment of the tax and penalty demanded under section 129, leaving only delay in adjudication as the remaining dispute. In that situation, the High Court considered a time-bound direction appropriate and ordered completion of the adjudication within one month, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 1142 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359031</link>
      <description>Goods detained under the GST laws had already been released after payment of the tax and penalty demanded under section 129, leaving only delay in adjudication as the remaining dispute. In that situation, the High Court considered a time-bound direction appropriate and ordered completion of the adjudication within one month, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>