<?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 (8) TMI 1499 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459494</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging an appellate order concerning refund of input tax credit was declined because an efficacious statutory remedy existed under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the GST Appellate Tribunal. The High Court held that the availability of this specific appellate forum made it inappropriate to invoke writ jurisdiction to bypass the prescribed remedy, and left the petitioner free to pursue the statutory appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2025 14:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=782997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1499 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459494</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging an appellate order concerning refund of input tax credit was declined because an efficacious statutory remedy existed under Section 112 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the GST Appellate Tribunal. The High Court held that the availability of this specific appellate forum made it inappropriate to invoke writ jurisdiction to bypass the prescribed remedy, and left the petitioner free to pursue the statutory appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>