<?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 (9) TMI 1662 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460316</link>
    <description>Reliance on a review order created doubt about the basis of the impugned orders-in-original, and the HC held that procedural propriety required interference. The orders were set aside because the recorded consideration of the review order gave rise to suspicion as to whether the adjudication was properly founded. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after following due procedure and after granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2025 18:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=790023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1662 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460316</link>
      <description>Reliance on a review order created doubt about the basis of the impugned orders-in-original, and the HC held that procedural propriety required interference. The orders were set aside because the recorded consideration of the review order gave rise to suspicion as to whether the adjudication was properly founded. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after following due procedure and after granting the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>