<?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 (9) TMI 497 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758253</link>
    <description>HC allowed the petition challenging the CGST Act order due to improper notice placement. The court set aside the original order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was granted two weeks to respond to the notice, with the authority required to consider the response and provide a hearing before making a final decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 May 2025 21:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 497 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758253</link>
      <description>HC allowed the petition challenging the CGST Act order due to improper notice placement. The court set aside the original order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was granted two weeks to respond to the notice, with the authority required to consider the response and provide a hearing before making a final decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758253</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>