<?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 670 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758426</link>
    <description>GST registration cancellation was sought after the business had closed, and the applicant had already replied to the proper officer&#039;s query on the pending application. Exercising supervisory jurisdiction, the Delhi HC directed the proper officer to dispose of the cancellation application within four weeks. The Court did not examine the merits of the cancellation request or the parties&#039; contentions, and expressly left substantive issues and further remedies open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 May 2025 23:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767889" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 670 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758426</link>
      <description>GST registration cancellation was sought after the business had closed, and the applicant had already replied to the proper officer&#039;s query on the pending application. Exercising supervisory jurisdiction, the Delhi HC directed the proper officer to dispose of the cancellation application within four weeks. The Court did not examine the merits of the cancellation request or the parties&#039; contentions, and expressly left substantive issues and further remedies open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758426</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>