<?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 1017 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386249</link>
    <description>The court directed the release of a consignment detained under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act due to an expired E-Way Bill validity upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the penalty amount of Rs. 3,56,100. The tax had been paid, and the petitioner disputed the penalty amount demanded in the detention notice. The 2nd respondent was ordered to complete adjudication within one month after considering the petitioner&#039;s reply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=588575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 1017 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386249</link>
      <description>The court directed the release of a consignment detained under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act due to an expired E-Way Bill validity upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the penalty amount of Rs. 3,56,100. The tax had been paid, and the petitioner disputed the penalty amount demanded in the detention notice. The 2nd respondent was ordered to complete adjudication within one month after considering the petitioner&#039;s reply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>