<?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 (11) TMI 352 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445461</link>
    <description>An order rejecting revocation of GST registration cancellation was found inadequate because it merely repeated that no reply had been filed to the show cause notice and did not address the challenge that the notice itself was contrary to Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Delhi HC therefore set aside the rejection and remanded the matter to the Proper Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the taxpayer to file additional material to show that business was being carried on from the principal place of business.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 May 2024 16:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 352 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445461</link>
      <description>An order rejecting revocation of GST registration cancellation was found inadequate because it merely repeated that no reply had been filed to the show cause notice and did not address the challenge that the notice itself was contrary to Rule 25 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Delhi HC therefore set aside the rejection and remanded the matter to the Proper Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the taxpayer to file additional material to show that business was being carried on from the principal place of business.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>