<?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 (2) TMI 993 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766446</link>
    <description>GST registration cancellation based solely on an allegation that the taxpayer was not functioning at the principal place of business was found unsustainable when the record showed the petitioner was operating from the stated Bengaluru premises. Because the stated ground for cancellation was contrary to the material on record, the impugned cancellation notice and order were liable to interference. The GST registration cancellation was therefore quashed in favour of the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=801317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 993 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766446</link>
      <description>GST registration cancellation based solely on an allegation that the taxpayer was not functioning at the principal place of business was found unsustainable when the record showed the petitioner was operating from the stated Bengaluru premises. Because the stated ground for cancellation was contrary to the material on record, the impugned cancellation notice and order were liable to interference. The GST registration cancellation was therefore quashed in favour of the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>