<?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 (8) TMI 175 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383986</link>
    <description>Pending adjudication of the writ petition, interim release of a seized vehicle and goods was warranted because the tax liability and penalty had already been deposited. The court did not finally decide whether the authority could directly invoke confiscation without first using the seizure and detention mechanism; it confined itself to interim protection on the facts before it. As a result, the vehicle and goods were directed to be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582276" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 175 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383986</link>
      <description>Pending adjudication of the writ petition, interim release of a seized vehicle and goods was warranted because the tax liability and penalty had already been deposited. The court did not finally decide whether the authority could directly invoke confiscation without first using the seizure and detention mechanism; it confined itself to interim protection on the facts before it. As a result, the vehicle and goods were directed to be released forthwith in favour of the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>