<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1408 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296928</link>
    <description>An attachment order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing was held unsustainable. The HC found that the petitioner had indisputably not been heard before the impugned order was issued, so the order could not be maintained consistently with natural justice. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and for reconsideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2021 21:23:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1408 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296928</link>
      <description>An attachment order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing was held unsustainable. The HC found that the petitioner had indisputably not been heard before the impugned order was issued, so the order could not be maintained consistently with natural justice. The order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted for fresh disposal after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and for reconsideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>