<?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 1910 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279741</link>
    <description>A reference under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 lies only for amounts due under Sections 15 to 17 arising from goods supplied or services rendered by a statutorily defined supplier. The analysis states that the Council was not vitiated by breach of natural justice because notices were issued, hearings were held, replies were sought, and further opportunity was given. It also states that prior memorandum registration was not a jurisdictional prerequisite where the enterprise fell within the broader statutory definition of &quot;supplier&quot;. On that basis, the challenge failed and the reference was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 06:34:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1910 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279741</link>
      <description>A reference under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 lies only for amounts due under Sections 15 to 17 arising from goods supplied or services rendered by a statutorily defined supplier. The analysis states that the Council was not vitiated by breach of natural justice because notices were issued, hearings were held, replies were sought, and further opportunity was given. It also states that prior memorandum registration was not a jurisdictional prerequisite where the enterprise fell within the broader statutory definition of &quot;supplier&quot;. On that basis, the challenge failed and the reference was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>