<?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 831 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401076</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the detention and notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, interpreting Rule 138(10) to require timely extension of e-way bill validity. The Court rejected arguments related to multimodal shipment provisions and affirmed the Single Judge&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal. The appellant&#039;s contentions were rejected, and the directions of the Single Judge were to be implemented by the Department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628695" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 831 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401076</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the detention and notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, interpreting Rule 138(10) to require timely extension of e-way bill validity. The Court rejected arguments related to multimodal shipment provisions and affirmed the Single Judge&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal. The appellant&#039;s contentions were rejected, and the directions of the Single Judge were to be implemented by the Department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401076</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>