<?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 984 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755764</link>
    <description>HC allowed petitioners&#039; challenge to penalty for transporting vehicle after e-way bill expiry. Despite technical violation, court found no deliberate tax evasion intent. Impugned order was set aside, with penalty refunded, based on previous judicial precedents and absence of willful misconduct by petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 11:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 984 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755764</link>
      <description>HC allowed petitioners&#039; challenge to penalty for transporting vehicle after e-way bill expiry. Despite technical violation, court found no deliberate tax evasion intent. Impugned order was set aside, with penalty refunded, based on previous judicial precedents and absence of willful misconduct by petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>