<?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 (7) TMI 1703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291233</link>
    <description>GST penalty disputes may be directed to the statutory appellate remedy where the challenge is against a penalty order. The document also notes that, where an appellate order exists and no stay is operating, the authority must justify continued detention of the goods and vehicle and consider release of the consignment and truck accordingly. The focus is on the availability of appeal as the primary remedy and the effect of an unstayed appellate order on seizure-related restraint.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=626730" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1703 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291233</link>
      <description>GST penalty disputes may be directed to the statutory appellate remedy where the challenge is against a penalty order. The document also notes that, where an appellate order exists and no stay is operating, the authority must justify continued detention of the goods and vehicle and consider release of the consignment and truck accordingly. The focus is on the availability of appeal as the primary remedy and the effect of an unstayed appellate order on seizure-related restraint.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>