<?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>GST portal service and alternative remedy: visible notices defeated natural justice objections, with factual disputes sent to appeal</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100929</link>
    <description>Visible notices on the GST common portal amounted to substantial compliance with service requirements, so the objection that the last notice was not communicated and that hearing was denied failed. The challenge based on breach of natural justice was rejected because the original show cause notice, reminders and the later notice were available on the dashboard. The court also found no violation of the statutory hearing requirement, holding that the proceedings were under Section 73, the supplementary notice was not time-barred, and the impugned demand matched that notice. As the remaining dispute involved factual findings on merits, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:43 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>GST portal service and alternative remedy: visible notices defeated natural justice objections, with factual disputes sent to appeal</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100929</link>
      <description>Visible notices on the GST common portal amounted to substantial compliance with service requirements, so the objection that the last notice was not communicated and that hearing was denied failed. The challenge based on breach of natural justice was rejected because the original show cause notice, reminders and the later notice were available on the dashboard. The court also found no violation of the statutory hearing requirement, holding that the proceedings were under Section 73, the supplementary notice was not time-barred, and the impugned demand matched that notice. As the remaining dispute involved factual findings on merits, the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:43 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>