<?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 (7) TMI 1636 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364328</link>
    <description>HC ruled that the 1st respondent cannot invoke the bank guarantee for three months, allowing the petitioner time to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The court balanced procedural fairness by preserving the petitioner&#039;s appellate remedy and preventing premature guarantee invocation, directing interim protection during the appeal process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1636 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364328</link>
      <description>HC ruled that the 1st respondent cannot invoke the bank guarantee for three months, allowing the petitioner time to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The court balanced procedural fairness by preserving the petitioner&#039;s appellate remedy and preventing premature guarantee invocation, directing interim protection during the appeal process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>