<?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 (7) TMI 802 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755582</link>
    <description>HC ruled that an online appeal filed within prescribed time limits should not be rejected due to delayed hard copy submission. The court interpreted Rule 108(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 to mean that online filing date is the official appeal filing date when the original order is uploaded on the common portal. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 11:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760169" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 802 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755582</link>
      <description>HC ruled that an online appeal filed within prescribed time limits should not be rejected due to delayed hard copy submission. The court interpreted Rule 108(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 to mean that online filing date is the official appeal filing date when the original order is uploaded on the common portal. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755582</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>