<?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>Service via Online Portal Deemed Valid Under Section 169(1)(d), Procedural Flexibility Affirmed for Notice and Appeal Timelines</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89420</link>
    <description>HC held that service of notice by uploading on the portal constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court rejected the contention that personal service was mandatory, finding that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had responded to the show-cause notice. The appellate authority&#039;s mechanical rejection of the appeal for delay was deemed incorrect, following precedent that allows condonation beyond the extended one-month period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petition was disposed of, affirming a more flexible interpretation of service and delay condonation provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2025 06:47:39 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2025 06:47:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=829101" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Service via Online Portal Deemed Valid Under Section 169(1)(d), Procedural Flexibility Affirmed for Notice and Appeal Timelines</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89420</link>
      <description>HC held that service of notice by uploading on the portal constitutes valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The court rejected the contention that personal service was mandatory, finding that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and had responded to the show-cause notice. The appellate authority&#039;s mechanical rejection of the appeal for delay was deemed incorrect, following precedent that allows condonation beyond the extended one-month period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the petition was disposed of, affirming a more flexible interpretation of service and delay condonation provisions.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2025 06:47:39 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>