<?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 (8) TMI 244 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776057</link>
    <description>Non-filling of Part-B of an e-way bill was treated as only a technical lapse where the goods were supported by tax invoices, e-way bill and bilti, and the record showed that they crossed the Indian frontier and were received in Bangladesh with customs seals. In the absence of material indicating an attempt to evade tax, penalty was not justified. The penalty order and the appellate order were therefore quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2025 08:28:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=840577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 244 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776057</link>
      <description>Non-filling of Part-B of an e-way bill was treated as only a technical lapse where the goods were supported by tax invoices, e-way bill and bilti, and the record showed that they crossed the Indian frontier and were received in Bangladesh with customs seals. In the absence of material indicating an attempt to evade tax, penalty was not justified. The penalty order and the appellate order were therefore quashed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>