<?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 (6) TMI 137 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438563</link>
    <description>A written request for personal hearing made in a belated reply could not be ignored merely because the reply was time-barred. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act requires consideration of such a request, and treating it as rejected on a hyper-technical basis was held to defeat the statutory safeguard and violate natural justice. The assessment order was therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after granting a personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=715474" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 137 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438563</link>
      <description>A written request for personal hearing made in a belated reply could not be ignored merely because the reply was time-barred. Section 75(4) of the CGST Act requires consideration of such a request, and treating it as rejected on a hyper-technical basis was held to defeat the statutory safeguard and violate natural justice. The assessment order was therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after granting a personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>