<?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 1426 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760827</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to an assessment order under the CGST Act and a rectification order was held not maintainable where the dispute turned on contested factual questions about alleged excess input tax credit. The court noted that the orders were passed after notice and hearing, and that such fact-intensive issues are not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The proper remedy was the statutory appellate mechanism, and the challenge was left to be pursued in appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 May 2025 14:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775859" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1426 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760827</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to an assessment order under the CGST Act and a rectification order was held not maintainable where the dispute turned on contested factual questions about alleged excess input tax credit. The court noted that the orders were passed after notice and hearing, and that such fact-intensive issues are not ordinarily examined in writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The proper remedy was the statutory appellate mechanism, and the challenge was left to be pursued in appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>