<?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 (2) TMI 1299 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465355</link>
    <description>Interim protection against GST orders was considered warranted where the challenge showed a prima facie case based on an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the fact that the tax department had notice during the corporate insolvency resolution process. On that basis, the matter was listed for further hearing, pleadings were directed to be completed, and the impugned orders were stayed until the next date of listing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2025 21:52:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1299 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465355</link>
      <description>Interim protection against GST orders was considered warranted where the challenge showed a prima facie case based on an approved resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the fact that the tax department had notice during the corporate insolvency resolution process. On that basis, the matter was listed for further hearing, pleadings were directed to be completed, and the impugned orders were stayed until the next date of listing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>