<?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 250 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772137</link>
    <description>The appellate authority should not reject a statutory appeal where the delay is within the condonable period and the matter requires consideration on merits. On the facts stated, a 22-day delay was held to be condonable, and the authority ought to have taken a lenient view and numbered the appeal. The impugned rejection was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to register the appeal and decide it on merits in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2025 16:42:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=826526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 250 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772137</link>
      <description>The appellate authority should not reject a statutory appeal where the delay is within the condonable period and the matter requires consideration on merits. On the facts stated, a 22-day delay was held to be condonable, and the authority ought to have taken a lenient view and numbered the appeal. The impugned rejection was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to register the appeal and decide it on merits in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772137</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>