<?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>2017 (5) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343029</link>
    <description>The Court directed the 3rd respondent to provide a copy of the order within two weeks, emphasizing that this directive does not exempt the petitioner from explaining any delay in filing an appeal. The judgment highlighted that the provision of the order copy is separate from the petitioner&#039;s obligation to address any delay in the appeal process, thereby concluding the case without imposing any costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 May 2017 08:10:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343029</link>
      <description>The Court directed the 3rd respondent to provide a copy of the order within two weeks, emphasizing that this directive does not exempt the petitioner from explaining any delay in filing an appeal. The judgment highlighted that the provision of the order copy is separate from the petitioner&#039;s obligation to address any delay in the appeal process, thereby concluding the case without imposing any costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>