<?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 (5) TMI 380 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770108</link>
    <description>Delhi HC held that rectification application was barred by limitation where show cause notice was uploaded on additional notices tab without petitioner&#039;s knowledge. Following precedent in Neelgiri Machinery case, court permitted petitioner to file reply within one month despite procedural lapses. Adjudicating authority directed to pass order after hearing petitioner, subject to outcome of pending SLP in SC challenging the impugned notification under GST Act Section 168A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 10:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=819696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 380 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770108</link>
      <description>Delhi HC held that rectification application was barred by limitation where show cause notice was uploaded on additional notices tab without petitioner&#039;s knowledge. Following precedent in Neelgiri Machinery case, court permitted petitioner to file reply within one month despite procedural lapses. Adjudicating authority directed to pass order after hearing petitioner, subject to outcome of pending SLP in SC challenging the impugned notification under GST Act Section 168A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770108</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>