<?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 (4) TMI 303 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768389</link>
    <description>An assessment order under the GST law was set aside because it rejected the taxpayer&#039;s written reply with only a conclusory remark and did not show reasoned consideration of the explanation or supporting records. The High Court treated this lack of application of mind as a non-speaking order, requiring the authority to pass a reasoned order after properly hearing the taxpayer. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2025 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=811954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 303 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768389</link>
      <description>An assessment order under the GST law was set aside because it rejected the taxpayer&#039;s written reply with only a conclusory remark and did not show reasoned consideration of the explanation or supporting records. The High Court treated this lack of application of mind as a non-speaking order, requiring the authority to pass a reasoned order after properly hearing the taxpayer. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>