<?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>2025 (2) TMI 505 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765959</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment of bank accounts under GST may be renewed after the earlier attachment expires, if fresh satisfaction is recorded on later material showing a prima facie case of tax evasion and a live nexus with revenue protection. On the facts discussed, the record included search material, satisfaction notes, the taxpayer&#039;s statement, and an intimation under section 74(5), which supported continued attachment to safeguard revenue during the investigation into alleged fraudulent invoicing and wrongful input tax credit. Objections based on expiry, delay, or lack of jurisdiction did not justify interference where no legal infirmity was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2025 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=797379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 505 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765959</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment of bank accounts under GST may be renewed after the earlier attachment expires, if fresh satisfaction is recorded on later material showing a prima facie case of tax evasion and a live nexus with revenue protection. On the facts discussed, the record included search material, satisfaction notes, the taxpayer&#039;s statement, and an intimation under section 74(5), which supported continued attachment to safeguard revenue during the investigation into alleged fraudulent invoicing and wrongful input tax credit. Objections based on expiry, delay, or lack of jurisdiction did not justify interference where no legal infirmity was shown.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>