<?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>2018 (9) TMI 683 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366947</link>
    <description>Where no assessment orders had been passed for the relevant assessment years, a demand notice and bank attachment for recovery could not validly stand. The Court noted that verification confirmed the absence of assessment orders for all three years in question, so there was no enforceable basis for issuing a recovery demand or attaching the assessee&#039;s bank account. The impugned notice and attachment were therefore held unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534158" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 683 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366947</link>
      <description>Where no assessment orders had been passed for the relevant assessment years, a demand notice and bank attachment for recovery could not validly stand. The Court noted that verification confirmed the absence of assessment orders for all three years in question, so there was no enforceable basis for issuing a recovery demand or attaching the assessee&#039;s bank account. The impugned notice and attachment were therefore held unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366947</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>