https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775793 The HC held that although the petitioner submitted required documents belatedly to the first respondent, these were not considered due to timing. The second respondent also refused to consider them on appeal, citing non-compliance with procedural timelines and deleted the appeal. The court found that the petitioner had furnished reconciliation details, albeit not in the prescribed format, and this should not have led to outright rejection. The HC ruled that the second respondent ought to have examined the documents and format before dismissing the appeal. The petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the documents in accordance with law and expeditiously. en-us Fri, 04 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Jul 2025 08:17:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775793 The HC held that although the petitioner submitted required documents belatedly to the first respondent, these were not considered due to timing. The second respondent also refused to consider them on appeal, citing non-compliance with procedural timelines and deleted the appeal. The court found that the petitioner had furnished reconciliation details, albeit not in the prescribed format, and this should not have led to outright rejection. The HC ruled that the second respondent ought to have examined the documents and format before dismissing the appeal. The petition was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration of the documents in accordance with law and expeditiously. Case-Laws GST Fri, 04 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775793