<?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 (9) TMI 1029 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799003</link>
    <description>State GST authorities lack territorial jurisdiction to detain or seize goods merely transiting through their State when the goods are undisputedly destined for delivery in another State. Goods moving from Delhi to West Bengal only passed through Uttar Pradesh and were not intended for delivery there. Accordingly, the detention, consequential penalty and appellate order lacked jurisdiction and the issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 10:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=923058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1029 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799003</link>
      <description>State GST authorities lack territorial jurisdiction to detain or seize goods merely transiting through their State when the goods are undisputedly destined for delivery in another State. Goods moving from Delhi to West Bengal only passed through Uttar Pradesh and were not intended for delivery there. Accordingly, the detention, consequential penalty and appellate order lacked jurisdiction and the issue was resolved in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>