<?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 (5) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395433</link>
    <description>Writ petitions challenging consequential demand notices were disposed of on the basis of the statement that no recovery proceedings would be initiated until 29.06.2020. The court did not adjudicate the merits of the demand or the assessment orders, so the substantive tax liability remained unexamined in this disposal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395433</link>
      <description>Writ petitions challenging consequential demand notices were disposed of on the basis of the statement that no recovery proceedings would be initiated until 29.06.2020. The court did not adjudicate the merits of the demand or the assessment orders, so the substantive tax liability remained unexamined in this disposal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>