<?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>2023 (6) TMI 359 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438785</link>
    <description>Expired e-way bill documentation justified detention of goods and conveyance where interception occurred after expiry and the explanation for transit delay involved disputed facts. The claimed exemption for agricultural implements was not accepted at the writ stage because taxability depended on factual determination in assessment proceedings, and the supporting documents and alleged on-road delay required examination by the statutory authorities. The circulars relied on did not alter that position on the facts. Writ interference was therefore declined, the detention and penalty order was left undisturbed, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy available in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715927" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 359 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438785</link>
      <description>Expired e-way bill documentation justified detention of goods and conveyance where interception occurred after expiry and the explanation for transit delay involved disputed facts. The claimed exemption for agricultural implements was not accepted at the writ stage because taxability depended on factual determination in assessment proceedings, and the supporting documents and alleged on-road delay required examination by the statutory authorities. The circulars relied on did not alter that position on the facts. Writ interference was therefore declined, the detention and penalty order was left undisturbed, and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory remedy available in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>