<?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>2026 (6) TMI 247 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792866</link>
    <description>An appellate order rejecting a GST appeal as time-barred was unsustainable where the authority did not consider the taxpayer&#039;s stated grounds for condonation of delay. The High Court held that limitation could not be decided mechanically without examining the explanation for default. The order was set aside and the matter remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after notice to the taxpayer and in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 18:38:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=905351" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 247 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792866</link>
      <description>An appellate order rejecting a GST appeal as time-barred was unsustainable where the authority did not consider the taxpayer&#039;s stated grounds for condonation of delay. The High Court held that limitation could not be decided mechanically without examining the explanation for default. The order was set aside and the matter remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after notice to the taxpayer and in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>