<?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>2019 (3) TMI 916 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376895</link>
    <description>Recorded reasons to believe based on relevant material are sufficient to support search and seizure under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, and writ review will not test the adequacy of that material once reasons are on record; the challenge to the search therefore failed. A confiscation order under section 130, however, must be preceded by a meaningful hearing, and an ex parte order passed without that opportunity could not be sustained; the order was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2020 11:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 916 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376895</link>
      <description>Recorded reasons to believe based on relevant material are sufficient to support search and seizure under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, and writ review will not test the adequacy of that material once reasons are on record; the challenge to the search therefore failed. A confiscation order under section 130, however, must be preceded by a meaningful hearing, and an ex parte order passed without that opportunity could not be sustained; the order was quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication after hearing the taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>