<?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>2015 (4) TMI 859 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258978</link>
    <description>The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration with a personal hearing opportunity. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax amount by a specified date. Failure to comply would result in restoration of the original order. The judgment underscored procedural fairness and the right to be heard, emphasizing the importance of allowing parties to present their case before decisions are made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2015 06:34:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382933" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 859 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258978</link>
      <description>The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration with a personal hearing opportunity. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax amount by a specified date. Failure to comply would result in restoration of the original order. The judgment underscored procedural fairness and the right to be heard, emphasizing the importance of allowing parties to present their case before decisions are made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>