<?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>2024 (3) TMI 438 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450657</link>
    <description>The Telangana HC quashed proceedings under Section 74(1) of CGST Act against a petitioner who had irregularly availed Input Tax Credit. The petitioner immediately discharged the entire tax liability with interest upon receiving the provisional audit report, before the final audit report was published. The court held that since the petitioner complied with Section 73(5) and (6) by paying tax and interest promptly after being informed of the liability, no further proceedings under Section 74 could be initiated. The respondents&#039; action was deemed to exceed their jurisdiction, and the petitioner was not required to exhaust statutory remedies given the jurisdictional excess.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 16:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 438 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450657</link>
      <description>The Telangana HC quashed proceedings under Section 74(1) of CGST Act against a petitioner who had irregularly availed Input Tax Credit. The petitioner immediately discharged the entire tax liability with interest upon receiving the provisional audit report, before the final audit report was published. The court held that since the petitioner complied with Section 73(5) and (6) by paying tax and interest promptly after being informed of the liability, no further proceedings under Section 74 could be initiated. The respondents&#039; action was deemed to exceed their jurisdiction, and the petitioner was not required to exhaust statutory remedies given the jurisdictional excess.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>