<?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>Transit penalty for goods detained without fraud was held unsustainable where invoice, e-way bill and consignee note supported movement.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98791</link>
    <description>The HC held that penalty for detention of goods in transit was unsustainable where the record showed movement under a tax invoice, e-way bill and consignee note, and the petitioner was treated as the consignee-owner. In the absence of any allegation or material of fraud in the accompanying documents, the authorities could not ignore the transport documents or proceed against the petitioner as another person. Subsequent cancellation of registration, having occurred after the invoice and loading of goods, did not justify the penalty. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Transit penalty for goods detained without fraud was held unsustainable where invoice, e-way bill and consignee note supported movement.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98791</link>
      <description>The HC held that penalty for detention of goods in transit was unsustainable where the record showed movement under a tax invoice, e-way bill and consignee note, and the petitioner was treated as the consignee-owner. In the absence of any allegation or material of fraud in the accompanying documents, the authorities could not ignore the transport documents or proceed against the petitioner as another person. Subsequent cancellation of registration, having occurred after the invoice and loading of goods, did not justify the penalty. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98791</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>