<?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 (4) TMI 1513 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769599</link>
    <description>HC analyzed GST Act provisions regarding goods transportation and route deviation. The Court ruled that seizure of goods in transit is not legally justified solely due to route changes when accompanying documents are genuine and no tax evasion evidence exists. The Court quashed seizure orders, emphasizing that the GST Act lacks mandatory route disclosure requirements. Goods were ordered to be released and deposited amounts refunded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=817754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1513 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769599</link>
      <description>HC analyzed GST Act provisions regarding goods transportation and route deviation. The Court ruled that seizure of goods in transit is not legally justified solely due to route changes when accompanying documents are genuine and no tax evasion evidence exists. The Court quashed seizure orders, emphasizing that the GST Act lacks mandatory route disclosure requirements. Goods were ordered to be released and deposited amounts refunded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769599</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>