<?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>2021 (4) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405887</link>
    <description>Bank account attachments treated as consequential to a summons could not continue once the summons was kept in abeyance, especially where the challenge also raised lack of jurisdiction. The court directed the Assessing Authority to lift the bank attachments, and the matter was posted for later hearing with liberty to file a rejoinder.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 11:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=640464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405887</link>
      <description>Bank account attachments treated as consequential to a summons could not continue once the summons was kept in abeyance, especially where the challenge also raised lack of jurisdiction. The court directed the Assessing Authority to lift the bank attachments, and the matter was posted for later hearing with liberty to file a rejoinder.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405887</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>