<?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>2022 (4) TMI 821 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421155</link>
    <description>The HC disposed of the writ petition challenging detention of goods and penalty imposition for invoice violations related to buyer&#039;s address discrepancies. The court ordered release of goods upon payment of 25% of the penalty amounts (Rs. 96,000 and Rs. 1,17,000) in two separate cases, without prejudice to petitioner&#039;s right to appeal the final order. The petitioner was permitted to challenge the final detention order before the Appellate Authority within three months of goods release. If no appeal was filed, respondents could recover the remaining penalty. The court noted that petitioner had only challenged the initial notice, not the subsequent final order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2025 15:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 821 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421155</link>
      <description>The HC disposed of the writ petition challenging detention of goods and penalty imposition for invoice violations related to buyer&#039;s address discrepancies. The court ordered release of goods upon payment of 25% of the penalty amounts (Rs. 96,000 and Rs. 1,17,000) in two separate cases, without prejudice to petitioner&#039;s right to appeal the final order. The petitioner was permitted to challenge the final detention order before the Appellate Authority within three months of goods release. If no appeal was filed, respondents could recover the remaining penalty. The court noted that petitioner had only challenged the initial notice, not the subsequent final order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>