<?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 (9) TMI 883 - UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798857</link>
    <description>Personal hearing requirements for GST liability orders under Section 75(4) were central to the challenge. The factual circumstances were not shown to differ from those considered in an earlier ruling on the same requirement. The writ petition was therefore decided in accordance with that earlier decision, addressing whether the impugned GST liability order complied with the statutory personal-hearing requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2026 08:41:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=922509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 883 - UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798857</link>
      <description>Personal hearing requirements for GST liability orders under Section 75(4) were central to the challenge. The factual circumstances were not shown to differ from those considered in an earlier ruling on the same requirement. The writ petition was therefore decided in accordance with that earlier decision, addressing whether the impugned GST liability order complied with the statutory personal-hearing requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>