<?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 194 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764132</link>
    <description>Rejection of an appeal for alleged delay was unsustainable where the requisite deposit had been confirmed and the appeal had been filed within the relaxation granted by the relevant notification. The court held that the appeal should not have been dismissed on delay grounds and directed that it be restored to the appellate file and numbered for disposal on merits. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the appeal was restored for expeditious hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2025 08:45:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=786053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 194 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764132</link>
      <description>Rejection of an appeal for alleged delay was unsustainable where the requisite deposit had been confirmed and the appeal had been filed within the relaxation granted by the relevant notification. The court held that the appeal should not have been dismissed on delay grounds and directed that it be restored to the appellate file and numbered for disposal on merits. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and the appeal was restored for expeditious hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>