<?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 (10) TMI 574 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444351</link>
    <description>HC examined the provisional attachment of a bank account under CGST Act, finding insufficient justification for the drastic measure. Despite partial tax payment and a tax shortfall of Rs. 1,21,70,500, the court set aside the attachment order, emphasizing that such actions require overwhelming reasons. The writ petition was allowed, highlighting judicial scrutiny of administrative tax enforcement actions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 17:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 574 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444351</link>
      <description>HC examined the provisional attachment of a bank account under CGST Act, finding insufficient justification for the drastic measure. Despite partial tax payment and a tax shortfall of Rs. 1,21,70,500, the court set aside the attachment order, emphasizing that such actions require overwhelming reasons. The writ petition was allowed, highlighting judicial scrutiny of administrative tax enforcement actions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>