<?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 686 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398567</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the competent authority&#039;s decision to deny copies of seized documents under Sec. 67(5) of the CGST Act, citing risks of manipulation and interference with the investigation. The court found the authority&#039;s discretion judiciously exercised and no jurisdictional error in the decision. As statutory appeal was an available remedy, the court dismissed the petitions challenging tax liability, interest, and penalty for various assessment years at the admission stage, without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2021 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 686 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398567</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the competent authority&#039;s decision to deny copies of seized documents under Sec. 67(5) of the CGST Act, citing risks of manipulation and interference with the investigation. The court found the authority&#039;s discretion judiciously exercised and no jurisdictional error in the decision. As statutory appeal was an available remedy, the court dismissed the petitions challenging tax liability, interest, and penalty for various assessment years at the admission stage, without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>