<?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>2019 (6) TMI 754 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381677</link>
    <description>A refund rejection was found to be vitiated where the applicant had opted for personal hearing in the prescribed form, yet the record showed no indication that such hearing was granted. The Madras High Court treated this omission as a breach of natural justice and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2019 07:13:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 754 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381677</link>
      <description>A refund rejection was found to be vitiated where the applicant had opted for personal hearing in the prescribed form, yet the record showed no indication that such hearing was granted. The Madras High Court treated this omission as a breach of natural justice and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a personal hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>