<?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>2023 (3) TMI 677 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435291</link>
    <description>HC allowed petitioner&#039;s refund application after identifying a typographical error in tax return. Despite initial rejection, court ordered Adjudicating Authority to reconsider refund request within four weeks, noting the error was minor and did not impact actual tax calculations. Respondents agreed to review and process the corrected application.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2025 16:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=707819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 677 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435291</link>
      <description>HC allowed petitioner&#039;s refund application after identifying a typographical error in tax return. Despite initial rejection, court ordered Adjudicating Authority to reconsider refund request within four weeks, noting the error was minor and did not impact actual tax calculations. Respondents agreed to review and process the corrected application.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>