<?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 (5) TMI 784 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422524</link>
    <description>Sections 129 and 130 of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 operate in independent and mutually exclusive fields. Confiscation proceedings under Section 130 need not await prior detention, seizure or release proceedings under Section 129, and may be initiated at the threshold where the facts justify such action. In writ jurisdiction, the Court declined interference on the complaint of absence of personal hearing, noting that written objections had been filed and considered and that factual disputes were better left to the statutory appellate remedy. The confiscation action was sustained, with the tax and penalty obligation maintained and the fine substantially reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2025 14:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=679366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 784 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422524</link>
      <description>Sections 129 and 130 of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 operate in independent and mutually exclusive fields. Confiscation proceedings under Section 130 need not await prior detention, seizure or release proceedings under Section 129, and may be initiated at the threshold where the facts justify such action. In writ jurisdiction, the Court declined interference on the complaint of absence of personal hearing, noting that written objections had been filed and considered and that factual disputes were better left to the statutory appellate remedy. The confiscation action was sustained, with the tax and penalty obligation maintained and the fine substantially reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422524</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>