<?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 (10) TMI 966 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760367</link>
    <description>Where the entire disputed demand had already been deposited before the appeal, the pre-deposit condition for an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was treated as satisfied and no further deposit could be insisted upon. The demand for an additional pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(a) or 107(6)(b) was therefore inapplicable, and refusal to entertain the appeal on that ground was unsustainable. The appeal was required to be heard on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 19:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=774441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 966 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760367</link>
      <description>Where the entire disputed demand had already been deposited before the appeal, the pre-deposit condition for an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was treated as satisfied and no further deposit could be insisted upon. The demand for an additional pre-deposit under Section 107(6)(a) or 107(6)(b) was therefore inapplicable, and refusal to entertain the appeal on that ground was unsustainable. The appeal was required to be heard on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>