<?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>2026 (1) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784341</link>
    <description>Detention of goods and vehicle under the GST transit provisions was treated as a matter falling within Section 129, and the stated position was that where ownership is asserted and the movement is supported by invoice and e-way bill, valuation should proceed on the invoice value under Section 129(1)(a). On that basis, the contrary approach under Section 129(1)(b) was not sustained. The goods were directed to be released on invoice value, and the impugned order was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2026 07:51:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=875348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 97 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784341</link>
      <description>Detention of goods and vehicle under the GST transit provisions was treated as a matter falling within Section 129, and the stated position was that where ownership is asserted and the movement is supported by invoice and e-way bill, valuation should proceed on the invoice value under Section 129(1)(a). On that basis, the contrary approach under Section 129(1)(b) was not sustained. The goods were directed to be released on invoice value, and the impugned order was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784341</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>