<?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 (6) TMI 662 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772549</link>
    <description>HC ruled that detention of a vehicle under Section 129 of CGST Act requires actual transportation of goods in contravention of law. Mere possession of a mismatched e-way bill without goods movement does not justify vehicle impoundment. The Court invalidated the penalty and ordered vehicle release, emphasizing strict interpretation of penal provisions and procedural safeguards in tax legislation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2025 08:43:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 662 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772549</link>
      <description>HC ruled that detention of a vehicle under Section 129 of CGST Act requires actual transportation of goods in contravention of law. Mere possession of a mismatched e-way bill without goods movement does not justify vehicle impoundment. The Court invalidated the penalty and ordered vehicle release, emphasizing strict interpretation of penal provisions and procedural safeguards in tax legislation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>