<?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 (4) TMI 771 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751590</link>
    <description>HC ruled that a minor vehicle number discrepancy in an e-way bill during stock transfer does not constitute tax evasion. The court set aside penalty orders totaling Rs. 1,15,696, finding the error was a human mistake without intent to evade tax. The decision emphasized that technical errors should not trigger punitive measures when goods are legitimately transported and all necessary documentation is present.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 771 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751590</link>
      <description>HC ruled that a minor vehicle number discrepancy in an e-way bill during stock transfer does not constitute tax evasion. The court set aside penalty orders totaling Rs. 1,15,696, finding the error was a human mistake without intent to evade tax. The decision emphasized that technical errors should not trigger punitive measures when goods are legitimately transported and all necessary documentation is present.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>