<?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 (11) TMI 1036 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301256</link>
    <description>Writ petitions challenging assessment orders were found not maintainable where notice and personal hearing had been fixed, but the petitioner did not appear or pursue the proceedings. The Court declined interference because an effective statutory appellate remedy was available under the tax statute, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for bypassing that remedy. On those facts, the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 08:37:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 1036 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301256</link>
      <description>Writ petitions challenging assessment orders were found not maintainable where notice and personal hearing had been fixed, but the petitioner did not appear or pursue the proceedings. The Court declined interference because an effective statutory appellate remedy was available under the tax statute, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for bypassing that remedy. On those facts, the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>