<?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 (8) TMI 1247 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757543</link>
    <description>Section 30 of the CGST Act requires that an application for revocation of cancellation of registration not be rejected unless the applicant is given an opportunity of hearing. On the facts noted, no personal hearing was afforded before the rejection order was passed, so the order was treated as legally unsustainable and set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with notice of hearing to be issued and a fresh order passed in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 14:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1247 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757543</link>
      <description>Section 30 of the CGST Act requires that an application for revocation of cancellation of registration not be rejected unless the applicant is given an opportunity of hearing. On the facts noted, no personal hearing was afforded before the rejection order was passed, so the order was treated as legally unsustainable and set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration, with notice of hearing to be issued and a fresh order passed in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>