<?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 (2) TMI 598 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786450</link>
    <description>Suspension of registration prevents the supplier from lawfully affecting taxable supply where statutorily prescribed transit documents are absent. The text explains that a tax invoice issued after suspension cannot substitute for the mandatory documents required for movement of goods; absence of an e way bill and other specified documents defeats reliance on an administrative circular. Because the supplier&#039;s registration remained suspended and no e way bill was generated before seizure, the mover could not be treated as owner and relief based on the circular was unavailable. Consequently, the impugned orders upholding seizure were sustained and the writ petitions dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 20:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 598 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786450</link>
      <description>Suspension of registration prevents the supplier from lawfully affecting taxable supply where statutorily prescribed transit documents are absent. The text explains that a tax invoice issued after suspension cannot substitute for the mandatory documents required for movement of goods; absence of an e way bill and other specified documents defeats reliance on an administrative circular. Because the supplier&#039;s registration remained suspended and no e way bill was generated before seizure, the mover could not be treated as owner and relief based on the circular was unavailable. Consequently, the impugned orders upholding seizure were sustained and the writ petitions dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786450</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>