<?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 1454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760855</link>
    <description>HC upheld the petition challenging appeal dismissal due to lack of authorized signatory signature. The Court criticized appellate authorities for rejecting appeals without proper verification and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the appeal on merits, ensuring a fair hearing. The order was to be disposed of by 31 January 2025, with no costs imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760855</link>
      <description>HC upheld the petition challenging appeal dismissal due to lack of authorized signatory signature. The Court criticized appellate authorities for rejecting appeals without proper verification and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the appeal on merits, ensuring a fair hearing. The order was to be disposed of by 31 January 2025, with no costs imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760855</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>