<?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 (5) TMI 1703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361139</link>
    <description>In a GST seizure dispute, the High Court examined whether seized goods should be released pending the petitioner&#039;s challenge to an order passed under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court noted that the search was conducted under Section 67(2) and the impugned order under Section 67(6), while the petitioner claimed that books of account were later produced and that the authority acted without proper verification. Finding that the matter required scrutiny, the Court granted interim protection, directed conditional release of the goods on part deposit and security for the balance, and allowed the petitioner to continue business pending further hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 16:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 1703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361139</link>
      <description>In a GST seizure dispute, the High Court examined whether seized goods should be released pending the petitioner&#039;s challenge to an order passed under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. The Court noted that the search was conducted under Section 67(2) and the impugned order under Section 67(6), while the petitioner claimed that books of account were later produced and that the authority acted without proper verification. Finding that the matter required scrutiny, the Court granted interim protection, directed conditional release of the goods on part deposit and security for the balance, and allowed the petitioner to continue business pending further hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>