<?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 (6) TMI 1274 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197347</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order rejecting the rectification application, and remanded the matter for reconsideration under Section 74, directing the respondent to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner. The court emphasized the need to consider the evidence presented by the petitioner, highlighting the error in not adequately assessing the relevance of the records provided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2018 19:12:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=502835" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 1274 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197347</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order rejecting the rectification application, and remanded the matter for reconsideration under Section 74, directing the respondent to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner. The court emphasized the need to consider the evidence presented by the petitioner, highlighting the error in not adequately assessing the relevance of the records provided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>