<?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 (3) TMI 1390 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459865</link>
    <description>Under GST rules, a notice or order issued without the signature or digital signature of the competent authority does not satisfy the mandatory authentication requirement. The defect was undisputed, and the High Court followed its prior co-ordinate bench view to hold that an unsigned notice and order cannot be sustained. As a result, the impugned notice and order were treated as invalid and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 1390 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459865</link>
      <description>Under GST rules, a notice or order issued without the signature or digital signature of the competent authority does not satisfy the mandatory authentication requirement. The defect was undisputed, and the High Court followed its prior co-ordinate bench view to hold that an unsigned notice and order cannot be sustained. As a result, the impugned notice and order were treated as invalid and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>