<?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 (4) TMI 850 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789781</link>
    <description>Detention and penalty under GST Section 129 are not sustainable where the goods are supported by a tax invoice, e-way bill and consignee note, and the record shows no fraud or material discrepancy in the movement of goods. The commentary notes that the consignee&#039;s claim to the goods, together with the authorities&#039; own release of the goods in its favour, undermined the basis for treating it as a different person for penalty purposes. It also states that later cancellation of registrations could not cure defects in the original detention action because those cancellations were subsequent to the invoice and movement. The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +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=896607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 850 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789781</link>
      <description>Detention and penalty under GST Section 129 are not sustainable where the goods are supported by a tax invoice, e-way bill and consignee note, and the record shows no fraud or material discrepancy in the movement of goods. The commentary notes that the consignee&#039;s claim to the goods, together with the authorities&#039; own release of the goods in its favour, undermined the basis for treating it as a different person for penalty purposes. It also states that later cancellation of registrations could not cure defects in the original detention action because those cancellations were subsequent to the invoice and movement. The impugned orders were quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>