<?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 (9) TMI 628 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443006</link>
    <description>HC dismissed writ petition challenging tax assessment order. Petitioner failed to utilize statutory appellate remedies within prescribed time limits under BGST Act. The court emphasized that Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be invoked when alternative remedies exist, particularly when no fundamental rights violation or procedural irregularities were demonstrated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2025 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 628 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443006</link>
      <description>HC dismissed writ petition challenging tax assessment order. Petitioner failed to utilize statutory appellate remedies within prescribed time limits under BGST Act. The court emphasized that Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot be invoked when alternative remedies exist, particularly when no fundamental rights violation or procedural irregularities were demonstrated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>