<?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 (10) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443873</link>
    <description>HC found that the impugned order was invalid due to improper service of Show Cause Notice at the Petitioner&#039;s old address, despite change of business location being previously intimated. The court quashed the order, directing respondents to issue a fresh notice and allow the Petitioner to respond within four weeks, with a mandate to pass a new order within eight weeks, thereby upholding principles of natural justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2025 17:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443873</link>
      <description>HC found that the impugned order was invalid due to improper service of Show Cause Notice at the Petitioner&#039;s old address, despite change of business location being previously intimated. The court quashed the order, directing respondents to issue a fresh notice and allow the Petitioner to respond within four weeks, with a mandate to pass a new order within eight weeks, thereby upholding principles of natural justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443873</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>