<?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 1608 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771336</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to orders under the Tripura State GST Act was held not maintainable where a statutory appeal under Section 107(1) was available, including the condonation window under Section 107(4). The alleged non-supply of relied upon documents was treated as a ground that could be raised before the appellate authority along with other questions of law and fact. Because the orders followed show-cause notice, consideration of the reply, and personal hearing, the proceedings were not found to involve a patent breach of natural justice warranting writ interference. The petitions were not entertained and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 17:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=823797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1608 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771336</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to orders under the Tripura State GST Act was held not maintainable where a statutory appeal under Section 107(1) was available, including the condonation window under Section 107(4). The alleged non-supply of relied upon documents was treated as a ground that could be raised before the appellate authority along with other questions of law and fact. Because the orders followed show-cause notice, consideration of the reply, and personal hearing, the proceedings were not found to involve a patent breach of natural justice warranting writ interference. The petitions were not entertained and the petitioner was left to pursue the appellate remedy in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>