<?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 1132 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750635</link>
    <description>Refund applications rejected solely on limitation could not be sustained where a later CBDT notification excluded the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation for refund claims. That exclusion removed the limitation basis relied on to deny the claims, so the rejection on limitation alone was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1132 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750635</link>
      <description>Refund applications rejected solely on limitation could not be sustained where a later CBDT notification excluded the period from 01.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for computing limitation for refund claims. That exclusion removed the limitation basis relied on to deny the claims, so the rejection on limitation alone was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=750635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>