<?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>Court Upholds Detention of Goods u/s 129(3) CGST Act; Officer&#039;s Justification Deemed Adequate in GSTIN Transfer Case.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=52890</link>
    <description>Detention of goods - Section 129(3) of the CGST Act - stock transfer - allegation that the consignor and consignee are two different entity with different GSTINs - appellant contended that the detention itself is without jurisdiction and authority. We are not persuaded to accept such a contention, because the officer had mentioned sufficient reason for detention of the transport. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:39:42 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:39:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Upholds Detention of Goods u/s 129(3) CGST Act; Officer&#039;s Justification Deemed Adequate in GSTIN Transfer Case.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=52890</link>
      <description>Detention of goods - Section 129(3) of the CGST Act - stock transfer - allegation that the consignor and consignee are two different entity with different GSTINs - appellant contended that the detention itself is without jurisdiction and authority. We are not persuaded to accept such a contention, because the officer had mentioned sufficient reason for detention of the transport. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2020 14:39:42 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=52890</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>