<?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 1730 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771458</link>
    <description>A GST cancellation order was treated as an appealable order, so writ jurisdiction was declined in favour of the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner was permitted time to file the appeal, and if filed within the stipulated period it was to be considered on merits without rejection on limitation. The petition was therefore not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1730 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771458</link>
      <description>A GST cancellation order was treated as an appealable order, so writ jurisdiction was declined in favour of the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner was permitted time to file the appeal, and if filed within the stipulated period it was to be considered on merits without rejection on limitation. The petition was therefore not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>