<?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>Court Rules Section 129(3) Misapplied in Godown Search; Calls for Administrative Review and Officer Accountability.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75807</link>
    <description>Levy of penalty - Search and seizure operation at the petitioner&#039;s godown. - The Court held that invoking Section 129(3) in this instance was without jurisdiction. The provision, intended for regulating goods in transit, was misapplied to a stationary godown, a static location not covered under the said section&#039;s purview. This misapplication highlighted a significant procedural misstep, as the actions undertaken by the officers exceeded their jurisdictional boundaries set by the Act. - The Court criticized this deliberate mischaracterization, refraining from delving into the motives behind such conduct to avoid a lengthy process. However, it emphasized the accountability of the officers, recommending administrative review and appropriate disciplinary action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:45:39 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:45:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=747262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rules Section 129(3) Misapplied in Godown Search; Calls for Administrative Review and Officer Accountability.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75807</link>
      <description>Levy of penalty - Search and seizure operation at the petitioner&#039;s godown. - The Court held that invoking Section 129(3) in this instance was without jurisdiction. The provision, intended for regulating goods in transit, was misapplied to a stationary godown, a static location not covered under the said section&#039;s purview. This misapplication highlighted a significant procedural misstep, as the actions undertaken by the officers exceeded their jurisdictional boundaries set by the Act. - The Court criticized this deliberate mischaracterization, refraining from delving into the motives behind such conduct to avoid a lengthy process. However, it emphasized the accountability of the officers, recommending administrative review and appropriate disciplinary action.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:45:39 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=75807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>