<?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>2025 (1) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764046</link>
    <description>A 37-day delay in filing a GST appeal was condoned where the petitioner showed non-awareness of portal-based communications and the resulting failure to respond in time. The court also noted that no personal hearing had been granted before the original order. The limitation-based rejection of the appeal was therefore set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to take the appeal on record and decide it on merits after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=785631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764046</link>
      <description>A 37-day delay in filing a GST appeal was condoned where the petitioner showed non-awareness of portal-based communications and the resulting failure to respond in time. The court also noted that no personal hearing had been granted before the original order. The limitation-based rejection of the appeal was therefore set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to take the appeal on record and decide it on merits after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>