<?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 (7) TMI 237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755017</link>
    <description>Penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was found unsustainable where the vehicle number was correctly reflected in the e-invoice and Part B of the e-way bill was not uploaded due to a technical glitch. The omission was treated as a technical lapse, and on those facts it did not any intention to evade tax. The consequential orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in light of the applicable legal position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2024 18:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755017</link>
      <description>Penalty under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was found unsustainable where the vehicle number was correctly reflected in the e-invoice and Part B of the e-way bill was not uploaded due to a technical glitch. The omission was treated as a technical lapse, and on those facts it did not any intention to evade tax. The consequential orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication in light of the applicable legal position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>