<?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 (6) TMI 558 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361731</link>
    <description>The non-appealable exception under the GST appellate scheme was confined to seizure or retention of books of account, registers and other documents, and could not be expanded to cover every seizure order. A seizure order for a vehicle was therefore treated as appealable under the statutory appellate provision, and the writ petition was not entertained because an alternative appellate remedy was available. The text also notes that the appeal could be filed electronically or otherwise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 558 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361731</link>
      <description>The non-appealable exception under the GST appellate scheme was confined to seizure or retention of books of account, registers and other documents, and could not be expanded to cover every seizure order. A seizure order for a vehicle was therefore treated as appealable under the statutory appellate provision, and the writ petition was not entertained because an alternative appellate remedy was available. The text also notes that the appeal could be filed electronically or otherwise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>