<?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>2024 (10) TMI 1719 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464026</link>
    <description>A consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years under the CGST/DGST regime was found not to be barred by section 74 of the CGST Act and DGST Act, so the objection did not disclose a jurisdictional defect warranting interference under Article 226. The writ challenge to the notice was therefore not entertainable and was dismissed. As to financial year 2017-18, the issue was left open for the petitioner to pursue in appropriate proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 20:09:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=854869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1719 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464026</link>
      <description>A consolidated show cause notice covering multiple financial years under the CGST/DGST regime was found not to be barred by section 74 of the CGST Act and DGST Act, so the objection did not disclose a jurisdictional defect warranting interference under Article 226. The writ challenge to the notice was therefore not entertainable and was dismissed. As to financial year 2017-18, the issue was left open for the petitioner to pursue in appropriate proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>