<?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>2022 (1) TMI 190 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416725</link>
    <description>The High Court directed the petitioner to deposit a balance amount of Rs. 90,09,874 towards GST dues for the registration to be restored under the CGST Act and MGST Act. The revenue was given three months to decide on the restoration application post-deposit, with communication of the order within one week. The petitioner agreed to deposit the required amount within two weeks, leading to the successful restoration of registration. The Court refrained from expressing views on the pending investigation against the petitioner and the outstanding GST liability. Non-compliance with the deposit requirement would result in the restoration of the impugned order rejecting the revocation of registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 190 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416725</link>
      <description>The High Court directed the petitioner to deposit a balance amount of Rs. 90,09,874 towards GST dues for the registration to be restored under the CGST Act and MGST Act. The revenue was given three months to decide on the restoration application post-deposit, with communication of the order within one week. The petitioner agreed to deposit the required amount within two weeks, leading to the successful restoration of registration. The Court refrained from expressing views on the pending investigation against the petitioner and the outstanding GST liability. Non-compliance with the deposit requirement would result in the restoration of the impugned order rejecting the revocation of registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416725</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>