<?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 (12) TMI 1650 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281148</link>
    <description>A writ petition was not entertained because the impugned GST order was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court applied the principle that where a statutory appellate remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked for direct challenge to the order. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the prescribed appellate remedy, and the petition was disposed of on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=573956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1650 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281148</link>
      <description>A writ petition was not entertained because the impugned GST order was appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The High Court applied the principle that where a statutory appellate remedy is available, the writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked for direct challenge to the order. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the prescribed appellate remedy, and the petition was disposed of on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>