<?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>Common portal service of GST orders upheld; delayed writ challenge refused, with statutory appeal left open subject to limitation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98793</link>
    <description>Service of GST orders through the common portal is legally valid under Sections 169 and 146 of the CGST Act, and a belated writ challenge based on alleged non-communication cannot be entertained nearly three years later. The High Court upheld dismissal of the writ petition on delay and laches, noting that the appellant had an available statutory appellate remedy. It further held that any such remedy must be pursued in accordance with the statutory scheme, including limitation, and no separate protective order was warranted. The appellant was left free to seek the statutory remedy subject to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896595" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Common portal service of GST orders upheld; delayed writ challenge refused, with statutory appeal left open subject to limitation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98793</link>
      <description>Service of GST orders through the common portal is legally valid under Sections 169 and 146 of the CGST Act, and a belated writ challenge based on alleged non-communication cannot be entertained nearly three years later. The High Court upheld dismissal of the writ petition on delay and laches, noting that the appellant had an available statutory appellate remedy. It further held that any such remedy must be pursued in accordance with the statutory scheme, including limitation, and no separate protective order was warranted. The appellant was left free to seek the statutory remedy subject to law.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2026 08:03:25 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>