<?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 (9) TMI 739 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778250</link>
    <description>200% GST penalty for detention was found unjustified where the only basis was expiry of the e-way bill. The Court accepted the uncontroverted explanation that the delay resulted from traffic blockage, noted that the statutory scheme allows extension of the e-way bill within the prescribed time, and found no material showing discrepancy or intent to evade tax. In the absence of mala fides, mechanical imposition of penalty could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=849905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 739 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778250</link>
      <description>200% GST penalty for detention was found unjustified where the only basis was expiry of the e-way bill. The Court accepted the uncontroverted explanation that the delay resulted from traffic blockage, noted that the statutory scheme allows extension of the e-way bill within the prescribed time, and found no material showing discrepancy or intent to evade tax. In the absence of mala fides, mechanical imposition of penalty could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>