<?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>2023 (5) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438092</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the challenged notifications, provisions, and circulars related to service tax but quashed the show cause notices against the petitioners. It ruled that the petitioners were not liable for service tax due to defects in notifications shifting the tax burden to them. The court ordered the respondents to process refund claims within 60 to 90 days, following the filing of applications by the petitioners.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 17:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714368" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438092</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the challenged notifications, provisions, and circulars related to service tax but quashed the show cause notices against the petitioners. It ruled that the petitioners were not liable for service tax due to defects in notifications shifting the tax burden to them. The court ordered the respondents to process refund claims within 60 to 90 days, following the filing of applications by the petitioners.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>