<?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 (11) TMI 394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429970</link>
    <description>HC allowed the writ petition challenging a GST tax demand notice, finding the original notice procedurally defective. The court determined that adequate opportunity to respond was not provided to the taxpayer, as notice was only given to the consignment driver. HC quashed the original demand order and directed respondent to issue a fresh notice with proper opportunity for the taxpayer to submit objections within eight weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2025 17:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 394 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429970</link>
      <description>HC allowed the writ petition challenging a GST tax demand notice, finding the original notice procedurally defective. The court determined that adequate opportunity to respond was not provided to the taxpayer, as notice was only given to the consignment driver. HC quashed the original demand order and directed respondent to issue a fresh notice with proper opportunity for the taxpayer to submit objections within eight weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>