<?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 (11) TMI 715 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445824</link>
    <description>Penalty for transporting goods without an e-way bill under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime was found unsustainable for the relevant period because earlier Division Bench rulings had already held that the e-way bill requirement under the then-applicable rules was not enforceable. On that settled position, the impugned penalty order could not stand, and the court directed that it be set aside with any deposited amount refunded in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=732397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 715 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445824</link>
      <description>Penalty for transporting goods without an e-way bill under the Uttar Pradesh GST regime was found unsustainable for the relevant period because earlier Division Bench rulings had already held that the e-way bill requirement under the then-applicable rules was not enforceable. On that settled position, the impugned penalty order could not stand, and the court directed that it be set aside with any deposited amount refunded in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>