<?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>Department has helped the taxpayer to get 100 % relief by way of their arguments which went against the department in GSTAT, Thiruvananthapuram Bench.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=17224</link>
    <description>Delayed issuance of MOV-09 after MOV-07 is examined as a limitation defect in detention-based penalty proceedings. The penalty order under section 129(3) must be issued within seven days from service of the penalty notice. MOV-09 issued forty-seven days after MOV-07 was treated as illegal and without jurisdiction. Since the defect was apparent from the record, it could be considered in the second appeal even though it had not been specifically raised before the first appellate authority. Similar cases should be reviewed for breaches of the mandatory timeline.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 08:53:55 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 08:53:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Department has helped the taxpayer to get 100 % relief by way of their arguments which went against the department in GSTAT, Thiruvananthapuram Bench.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=17224</link>
      <description>Delayed issuance of MOV-09 after MOV-07 is examined as a limitation defect in detention-based penalty proceedings. The penalty order under section 129(3) must be issued within seven days from service of the penalty notice. MOV-09 issued forty-seven days after MOV-07 was treated as illegal and without jurisdiction. Since the defect was apparent from the record, it could be considered in the second appeal even though it had not been specifically raised before the first appellate authority. Similar cases should be reviewed for breaches of the mandatory timeline.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Goods and Services Tax - GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 08:53:55 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=17224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>