<?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>2023 (12) TMI 1398 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460057</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging penalty orders under the CGST/SGST Act was not entertained because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal available and had not exhausted that remedy. The court held that the existence of an alternative appellate remedy justified refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction, and the petition was disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1398 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460057</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging penalty orders under the CGST/SGST Act was not entertained because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal available and had not exhausted that remedy. The court held that the existence of an alternative appellate remedy justified refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction, and the petition was disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>