<?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 (11) TMI 324 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400569</link>
    <description>An appellate remedy under section 107 was held unavailable where no reasoned adjudicatory order had been passed or shown to have been served after the taxpayer&#039;s explanation, so the writ could not be rejected on alternate-remedy grounds. Detention of goods under section 129 was found unjustified because the consignment carried an invoice and e-way bill, and the later delivery documents supported the explanation for the changed destination; a mere mismatch of destination, without evidence of a substantive contravention or intent to evade tax, was treated as insufficient for punitive recovery. The collection of tax and penalty was set aside and refund with interest was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 324 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400569</link>
      <description>An appellate remedy under section 107 was held unavailable where no reasoned adjudicatory order had been passed or shown to have been served after the taxpayer&#039;s explanation, so the writ could not be rejected on alternate-remedy grounds. Detention of goods under section 129 was found unjustified because the consignment carried an invoice and e-way bill, and the later delivery documents supported the explanation for the changed destination; a mere mismatch of destination, without evidence of a substantive contravention or intent to evade tax, was treated as insufficient for punitive recovery. The collection of tax and penalty was set aside and refund with interest was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>