<?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 1296 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760697</link>
    <description>Where the Commissioner validly assigns the function of proper officer to an Assistant Commissioner under the State GST Act, an order passed by that officer is treated as an order of an adjudicating authority. Because the assignment order was unchallenged, the cancellation of GST registration was appealable under the statutory appellate provision, and the appeal lay to the Commissioner. The earlier contrary view was reviewed and modified to reflect that forum of appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 13:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1296 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760697</link>
      <description>Where the Commissioner validly assigns the function of proper officer to an Assistant Commissioner under the State GST Act, an order passed by that officer is treated as an order of an adjudicating authority. Because the assignment order was unchallenged, the cancellation of GST registration was appealable under the statutory appellate provision, and the appeal lay to the Commissioner. The earlier contrary view was reviewed and modified to reflect that forum of appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>