<?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>2020 (9) TMI 373 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398254</link>
    <description>Detention of goods transported without a valid e-way bill was treated as justified because the movement was not covered by the required documentation. The court nevertheless permitted conditional release of the goods and vehicle on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the detention order. The ruling reflects that absence of a valid e-way bill can sustain detention, while security may be accepted to secure release pending compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2025 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 373 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398254</link>
      <description>Detention of goods transported without a valid e-way bill was treated as justified because the movement was not covered by the required documentation. The court nevertheless permitted conditional release of the goods and vehicle on the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the detention order. The ruling reflects that absence of a valid e-way bill can sustain detention, while security may be accepted to secure release pending compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>