<?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 997 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772884</link>
    <description>HC analyzed the release of confiscated goods under Section 130 of GST Act. Despite expiry of initial three-month period, Court allowed petitioner additional one month to pay fine and reclaim goods. The ruling hinged on goods not being sold and no prejudice to State, thereby providing flexibility in statutory interpretation while maintaining regulatory intent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2025 06:47:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=829000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 997 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772884</link>
      <description>HC analyzed the release of confiscated goods under Section 130 of GST Act. Despite expiry of initial three-month period, Court allowed petitioner additional one month to pay fine and reclaim goods. The ruling hinged on goods not being sold and no prejudice to State, thereby providing flexibility in statutory interpretation while maintaining regulatory intent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772884</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>