<?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>2020 (4) TMI 347 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394440</link>
    <description>The court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days. If complied with, the 2nd respondent was instructed to consider the appeal and pass orders on merits. The court emphasized adherence to prescribed appeal procedures and timelines, despite the petitioner&#039;s genuine reasons for the delay. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 347 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394440</link>
      <description>The court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Commissioner within 30 days. If complied with, the 2nd respondent was instructed to consider the appeal and pass orders on merits. The court emphasized adherence to prescribed appeal procedures and timelines, despite the petitioner&#039;s genuine reasons for the delay. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394440</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>