<?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>2016 (2) TMI 449 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271744</link>
    <description>The court partly allowed the writ appeal, directing the return of the deposited amount to the appellant. The appellant&#039;s challenge to the assessment order was upheld, emphasizing that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities, necessitating the return of the paid amount. The appellant was granted time to file a revision petition, and the second respondent was instructed to return the specified amount within a specified timeframe.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Feb 2016 22:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 449 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271744</link>
      <description>The court partly allowed the writ appeal, directing the return of the deposited amount to the appellant. The appellant&#039;s challenge to the assessment order was upheld, emphasizing that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities, necessitating the return of the paid amount. The appellant was granted time to file a revision petition, and the second respondent was instructed to return the specified amount within a specified timeframe.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>