<?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 966 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438159</link>
    <description>HC invalidated tax orders against a battery manufacturing company due to procedural irregularities. The court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient time for response as mandated by circular guidelines. Orders were set aside, with directions to grant a minimum 30-day period for the petitioner to submit explanations before finalizing tax assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 15:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 966 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438159</link>
      <description>HC invalidated tax orders against a battery manufacturing company due to procedural irregularities. The court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient time for response as mandated by circular guidelines. Orders were set aside, with directions to grant a minimum 30-day period for the petitioner to submit explanations before finalizing tax assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438159</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>