<?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>2018 (5) TMI 457 - MADHYA PRADESH, HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359893</link>
    <description>A grievance regarding reopening or acceptance of a revised TRAN-1 was not examined on merits because a circular dated 03.04.2018 had created a special cell to address such complaints. As the petitioner did not dispute the existence of that grievance redressal mechanism, the Court held that the appropriate course was to use the remedy under the circular. No substantive relief was granted in the petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519262" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 457 - MADHYA PRADESH, HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359893</link>
      <description>A grievance regarding reopening or acceptance of a revised TRAN-1 was not examined on merits because a circular dated 03.04.2018 had created a special cell to address such complaints. As the petitioner did not dispute the existence of that grievance redressal mechanism, the Court held that the appropriate course was to use the remedy under the circular. No substantive relief was granted in the petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>