<?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 (5) TMI 1212 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753159</link>
    <description>The HC considered a review petition with significant procedural delays. Despite allowing condonation of delay due to counsel&#039;s ill health, the court dismissed the review petition. The petitioner&#039;s attempt to distinguish the case using another HC judgment was unsuccessful. The court found no substantial grounds to review the original order dated 22.08.2023 and maintained its previous ruling regarding cash seizure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 15:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1212 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753159</link>
      <description>The HC considered a review petition with significant procedural delays. Despite allowing condonation of delay due to counsel&#039;s ill health, the court dismissed the review petition. The petitioner&#039;s attempt to distinguish the case using another HC judgment was unsuccessful. The court found no substantial grounds to review the original order dated 22.08.2023 and maintained its previous ruling regarding cash seizure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>