<?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>Challenge dismissed; registration cancellation upheld where authorised representative attended, no denial of natural justice found</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93330</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 cancelling the petitioner&#039;s registration, finding no breach of natural justice. The court held that the authority had issued notice of a personal hearing, an authorised representative of the petitioner attended and tendered written submissions, and no adjournment or specific request for a further hearing was made; hence the representative&#039;s conduct did not amount to denial of opportunity. The HC further held that an equivocal request for a hearing &quot;if necessary&quot; did not oblige the authority to seek additional clarification, and concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the administrative order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=858285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Challenge dismissed; registration cancellation upheld where authorised representative attended, no denial of natural justice found</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93330</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the impugned order dated 13.09.2024 cancelling the petitioner&#039;s registration, finding no breach of natural justice. The court held that the authority had issued notice of a personal hearing, an authorised representative of the petitioner attended and tendered written submissions, and no adjournment or specific request for a further hearing was made; hence the representative&#039;s conduct did not amount to denial of opportunity. The HC further held that an equivocal request for a hearing &quot;if necessary&quot; did not oblige the authority to seek additional clarification, and concluded there were no grounds to interfere with the administrative order.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 09:39:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>