<?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 (7) TMI 2011 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796125</link>
    <description>Full statutory pre-deposit and proof of deposit are procedural requirements for filing an appeal. Where the appellant cures a pre-deposit shortfall before the appellate authority passes its order, rejection without an adequate opportunity to rectify the deficiency is inconsistent with principles of natural justice. The appeal should therefore be heard on merits after the shortfall is made good, rather than rejected solely for the earlier pre-deposit deficiency.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:27:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=914471" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 2011 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796125</link>
      <description>Full statutory pre-deposit and proof of deposit are procedural requirements for filing an appeal. Where the appellant cures a pre-deposit shortfall before the appellate authority passes its order, rejection without an adequate opportunity to rectify the deficiency is inconsistent with principles of natural justice. The appeal should therefore be heard on merits after the shortfall is made good, rather than rejected solely for the earlier pre-deposit deficiency.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796125</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>