<?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 1586 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769672</link>
    <description>Upload of an adjudication order on the statutorily recognised common portal constituted valid communication under the OGST Act, 2017 because Section 169 permits communication through any prescribed mode and the portal is a recognised statutory platform under Section 146. The writ court also treated unexplained delay and laches as fatal, since the order was challenged long after its issuance without satisfactory explanation. Relief was therefore refused in writ jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:37:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1586 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769672</link>
      <description>Upload of an adjudication order on the statutorily recognised common portal constituted valid communication under the OGST Act, 2017 because Section 169 permits communication through any prescribed mode and the portal is a recognised statutory platform under Section 146. The writ court also treated unexplained delay and laches as fatal, since the order was challenged long after its issuance without satisfactory explanation. Relief was therefore refused in writ jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>