<?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>2023 (3) TMI 1596 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463619</link>
    <description>Refund rejection based solely on a mismatch between the return period and the refund period could not stand once a subsequent circular permitted clubbing of the relevant period. The respondents accepted that the claim required fresh consideration, so the impugned orders were set aside and the refund application was restored to the original authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2025 08:37:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=849022" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 1596 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463619</link>
      <description>Refund rejection based solely on a mismatch between the return period and the refund period could not stand once a subsequent circular permitted clubbing of the relevant period. The respondents accepted that the claim required fresh consideration, so the impugned orders were set aside and the refund application was restored to the original authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463619</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>