<?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 (12) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430924</link>
    <description>HC found the attachment notice under CGST Act invalid due to absence of a formal assessment order. Despite the respondent&#039;s argument about tax returns, the court ruled that coercive recovery without following due statutory process was unjustified. The notice was set aside, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in tax recovery proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2025 16:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=697366" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430924</link>
      <description>HC found the attachment notice under CGST Act invalid due to absence of a formal assessment order. Despite the respondent&#039;s argument about tax returns, the court ruled that coercive recovery without following due statutory process was unjustified. The notice was set aside, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in tax recovery proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>