<?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>Seizure of goods unlawful where valid uncancelled e-way bill and documents show genuine transport, no intent to evade tax</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94316</link>
    <description>The HC held that seizure of goods was unlawful where a valid e-way bill accompanied the consignment and remained uncancelled, demonstrating genuineness of transport documents and negating any demonstrable intent to evade tax. The absence of the shipping address as an additional place of business and omission of a consignor&#039;s official signature on the delivery challan did not, without more, establish culpable noncompliance justifying seizure. The court found that, given the valid e-way bill and accompanying documentation, departmental action amounted to unnecessary litigation and breached statutory safeguards; prior analogous authority supported quashing of such proceedings. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Seizure of goods unlawful where valid uncancelled e-way bill and documents show genuine transport, no intent to evade tax</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94316</link>
      <description>The HC held that seizure of goods was unlawful where a valid e-way bill accompanied the consignment and remained uncancelled, demonstrating genuineness of transport documents and negating any demonstrable intent to evade tax. The absence of the shipping address as an additional place of business and omission of a consignor&#039;s official signature on the delivery challan did not, without more, establish culpable noncompliance justifying seizure. The court found that, given the valid e-way bill and accompanying documentation, departmental action amounted to unnecessary litigation and breached statutory safeguards; prior analogous authority supported quashing of such proceedings. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>