<?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>2021 (4) TMI 1094 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406978</link>
    <description>The court upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the GST Act as the petitioner possessed gold jewellery without evidence of tax payment, indicating an intent to evade taxes. The judgment emphasized the importance of mens rea under Section 130 and compliance with the GST Act to avoid confiscation and penalties. The writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642857" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 1094 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406978</link>
      <description>The court upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 130 of the GST Act as the petitioner possessed gold jewellery without evidence of tax payment, indicating an intent to evade taxes. The judgment emphasized the importance of mens rea under Section 130 and compliance with the GST Act to avoid confiscation and penalties. The writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>