<?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 (8) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364592</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the petition regarding the interception and seizure of goods during transport under section 129 of the Goods &amp;amp; Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court emphasized the procedural requirements for obtaining release of goods, highlighting the availability of alternate remedies and the comprehensive nature of the legislation. It found the petitioner&#039;s communication insufficient and stressed the importance of complying with legal conditions for release, cautioning against bypassing statutory procedures and invoking the High Court&#039;s jurisdiction prematurely. The Court declined to interfere, emphasizing the need to follow proper channels for seeking relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364592</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the petition regarding the interception and seizure of goods during transport under section 129 of the Goods &amp;amp; Service Tax Act, 2017. The Court emphasized the procedural requirements for obtaining release of goods, highlighting the availability of alternate remedies and the comprehensive nature of the legislation. It found the petitioner&#039;s communication insufficient and stressed the importance of complying with legal conditions for release, cautioning against bypassing statutory procedures and invoking the High Court&#039;s jurisdiction prematurely. The Court declined to interfere, emphasizing the need to follow proper channels for seeking relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>