<?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>2025 (11) TMI 835 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781367</link>
    <description>HC held that impugned adjudication was vitiated by denial of hearing where no reply to the show-cause notice had been filed, amounting to breach of natural justice. Following similar precedent, the HC set aside the order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi GST Department as costs for delay. Petition disposed of by way of remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:44:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864521" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 835 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781367</link>
      <description>HC held that impugned adjudication was vitiated by denial of hearing where no reply to the show-cause notice had been filed, amounting to breach of natural justice. Following similar precedent, the HC set aside the order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Delhi GST Department as costs for delay. Petition disposed of by way of remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781367</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>