<?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 (12) TMI 625 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401826</link>
    <description>Detention of a consignment was upheld where the route shown in the e-way bill did not match the route actually used for transport, the mismatch rendering the movement unsupported by a valid e-way bill. The Court nevertheless granted interim relief and permitted release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the notice, leaving the final order to be passed under section 129.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Mar 2025 15:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630470" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 625 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401826</link>
      <description>Detention of a consignment was upheld where the route shown in the e-way bill did not match the route actually used for transport, the mismatch rendering the movement unsupported by a valid e-way bill. The Court nevertheless granted interim relief and permitted release of the goods and vehicle on furnishing a bank guarantee for the amount demanded in the notice, leaving the final order to be passed under section 129.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>