<?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 (9) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428318</link>
    <description>HC ruled that an order without proper digital signature authentication under CGST Rules invalidates the appeal timeline. The court quashed the dismissal order and restored the appeal, emphasizing procedural compliance. The decision focused on the technical irregularity of digital signature absence, without examining the case&#039;s substantive merits, and directed reconsideration by the Appellate Authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2025 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=692005" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1263 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428318</link>
      <description>HC ruled that an order without proper digital signature authentication under CGST Rules invalidates the appeal timeline. The court quashed the dismissal order and restored the appeal, emphasizing procedural compliance. The decision focused on the technical irregularity of digital signature absence, without examining the case&#039;s substantive merits, and directed reconsideration by the Appellate Authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>