<?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 1035 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755815</link>
    <description>The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to reconsider the show-cause notices afresh after giving the petitioner a hearing. The respondent was required to pass a fresh order within one week and to do so independently, without being influenced by the impugned endorsement. The operative effect is that the earlier endorsement was not to govern the fresh decision, and the petitioner was entitled to a renewed hearing before any order was made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 18:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1035 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755815</link>
      <description>The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to reconsider the show-cause notices afresh after giving the petitioner a hearing. The respondent was required to pass a fresh order within one week and to do so independently, without being influenced by the impugned endorsement. The operative effect is that the earlier endorsement was not to govern the fresh decision, and the petitioner was entitled to a renewed hearing before any order was made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>