<?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 (11) TMI 1261 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370918</link>
    <description>Mistakes in the tax invoice and e-way bill led to detention of goods and the vehicle, and the Court applied an earlier Division Bench ruling on the same issue. It held that the appropriate relief was release on security rather than unconditional release. The authorities were directed to release the goods and vehicle once the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of the goods as prescribed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1261 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370918</link>
      <description>Mistakes in the tax invoice and e-way bill led to detention of goods and the vehicle, and the Court applied an earlier Division Bench ruling on the same issue. It held that the appropriate relief was release on security rather than unconditional release. The authorities were directed to release the goods and vehicle once the petitioner furnished a bank guarantee for the tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of the goods as prescribed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370918</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>