<?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 (5) TMI 88 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407209</link>
    <description>The court granted liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice, conduct a new hearing, and deliver a speaking order regarding the penalty levy due to discrepancies in documentation. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and no costs were imposed on either party. The court mandated completion of the process within six weeks from the judgment date, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2025 12:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=643335" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 88 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407209</link>
      <description>The court granted liberty to the respondent to issue a fresh notice, conduct a new hearing, and deliver a speaking order regarding the penalty levy due to discrepancies in documentation. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and no costs were imposed on either party. The court mandated completion of the process within six weeks from the judgment date, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407209</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>