<?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 (3) TMI 1767 - DELHI HIGH COURT  </title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472046</link>
    <description>Section 34(2)&#039;s one-year limitation for completing objection proceedings raises the question whether an uncompleted objection proceeding prevents enforcement of an assessment demand and requires refund of sums deposited by the dealer. The High Court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearing, without a recorded determination on enforceability of the demand or entitlement to refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 20:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=926509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1767 - DELHI HIGH COURT  </title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472046</link>
      <description>Section 34(2)&#039;s one-year limitation for completing objection proceedings raises the question whether an uncompleted objection proceeding prevents enforcement of an assessment demand and requires refund of sums deposited by the dealer. The High Court issued notice and listed the matter for further hearing, without a recorded determination on enforceability of the demand or entitlement to refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=472046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>