<?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>Expired E-Way Bill Not Indicative of Tax Evasion; Court Rules Technical Breach Doesn&#039;t Warrant Penalty.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75180</link>
    <description>Levy of penalty - e-way bill had expired four days prior to the date of detention - existence of mens rea - The High Court found no evidence of intent to evade tax in the present case, considering the accompanying documents and the explanation for the delay in movement. - The failure to extend the e-way bill was viewed as a technical breach, insufficient for penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2024 09:33:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2024 09:33:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=744773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Expired E-Way Bill Not Indicative of Tax Evasion; Court Rules Technical Breach Doesn&#039;t Warrant Penalty.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75180</link>
      <description>Levy of penalty - e-way bill had expired four days prior to the date of detention - existence of mens rea - The High Court found no evidence of intent to evade tax in the present case, considering the accompanying documents and the explanation for the delay in movement. - The failure to extend the e-way bill was viewed as a technical breach, insufficient for penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2024 09:33:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>