<?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>2024 (1) TMI 565 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448166</link>
    <description>Possession of a valid E-Way Bill was treated as a mandatory compliance requirement under the GST Rules for transport of goods. The authorities found that the goods were intercepted without a valid E-Way Bill and that the document produced later had been generated only after interception. As those factual findings were not effectively challenged in the writ proceedings, the penalty under Section 129 was upheld and no interference was made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=739807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 565 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448166</link>
      <description>Possession of a valid E-Way Bill was treated as a mandatory compliance requirement under the GST Rules for transport of goods. The authorities found that the goods were intercepted without a valid E-Way Bill and that the document produced later had been generated only after interception. As those factual findings were not effectively challenged in the writ proceedings, the penalty under Section 129 was upheld and no interference was made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448166</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>