<?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>2022 (7) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424517</link>
    <description>The HC quashed one detention order where an excavator was confirmed for demonstration purposes only. For another petition involving a discrepancy between the invoice&#039;s delivery address and the registered dealer&#039;s official place of business, the court directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The respondent was instructed to consider the explanation and issue orders within seven days. The court acknowledged concerns about registered dealers potentially supplying goods at various locations under different names, while the petitioner argued no legal requirement exists for consignments to be delivered only at authorized business places.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2025 12:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683767" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424517</link>
      <description>The HC quashed one detention order where an excavator was confirmed for demonstration purposes only. For another petition involving a discrepancy between the invoice&#039;s delivery address and the registered dealer&#039;s official place of business, the court directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The respondent was instructed to consider the explanation and issue orders within seven days. The court acknowledged concerns about registered dealers potentially supplying goods at various locations under different names, while the petitioner argued no legal requirement exists for consignments to be delivered only at authorized business places.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>