<?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 (6) TMI 171 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772058</link>
    <description>HC examined a GST registration dispute involving a retrospective tax demand and registration cancellation. The court declined to quash the impugned order under writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act. If the appeal is filed with pre-deposit, the demand order would be automatically stayed, potentially enabling GST registration reactivation. The court emphasized statutory remedies over direct judicial intervention.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=826281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 171 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772058</link>
      <description>HC examined a GST registration dispute involving a retrospective tax demand and registration cancellation. The court declined to quash the impugned order under writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 107 of CGST Act. If the appeal is filed with pre-deposit, the demand order would be automatically stayed, potentially enabling GST registration reactivation. The court emphasized statutory remedies over direct judicial intervention.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>