<?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 (9) TMI 160 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385392</link>
    <description>GST registration cancellation was upheld where invoices were found to reflect paper transactions without proof of actual supply. The petitioner failed to produce convincing documentary evidence of physical movement of goods from Agra to Gwalior, and the authorities treated the bills as unsupported by real supply under Rule 21(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The appellate authority confirmed that finding, and no legal or factual infirmity was shown in the cancellation order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=585977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 160 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385392</link>
      <description>GST registration cancellation was upheld where invoices were found to reflect paper transactions without proof of actual supply. The petitioner failed to produce convincing documentary evidence of physical movement of goods from Agra to Gwalior, and the authorities treated the bills as unsupported by real supply under Rule 21(b) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The appellate authority confirmed that finding, and no legal or factual infirmity was shown in the cancellation order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385392</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>