<?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 (6) TMI 988 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754381</link>
    <description>HC upheld the assessment order disallowing input tax credit against a registered dealer who failed to provide substantive documentation or respond adequately to multiple notices. Despite opportunities for hearing and submission, the petitioner could not substantiate their claim for input tax credit. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no procedural impropriety in the assessment proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757252" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 988 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754381</link>
      <description>HC upheld the assessment order disallowing input tax credit against a registered dealer who failed to provide substantive documentation or respond adequately to multiple notices. Despite opportunities for hearing and submission, the petitioner could not substantiate their claim for input tax credit. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no procedural impropriety in the assessment proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>