<?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 536 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758292</link>
    <description>HC upheld the challenge to a provisional tax attachment order under GST Act. The court ruled that the attachment automatically lapses after one year and directed the bank to remove all account restrictions, effectively invalidating the prolonged seizure of the bank account beyond the statutory one-year period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 May 2025 23:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767562" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 536 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758292</link>
      <description>HC upheld the challenge to a provisional tax attachment order under GST Act. The court ruled that the attachment automatically lapses after one year and directed the bank to remove all account restrictions, effectively invalidating the prolonged seizure of the bank account beyond the statutory one-year period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758292</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>