<?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 (9) TMI 1354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443732</link>
    <description>Writ petitions challenging a GST assessment order and the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules were admitted notwithstanding the availability of an alternate remedy, because the two challenges were treated as connected. Interim protection was granted on a conditional basis: further proceedings were stayed upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax confirmed under the impugned order within four weeks. The matter was then posted for further hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 1354 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443732</link>
      <description>Writ petitions challenging a GST assessment order and the amendment to Rule 61(5) of the CGST Rules were admitted notwithstanding the availability of an alternate remedy, because the two challenges were treated as connected. Interim protection was granted on a conditional basis: further proceedings were stayed upon deposit of 10% of the disputed tax confirmed under the impugned order within four weeks. The matter was then posted for further hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443732</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>