<?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>2024 (2) TMI 1366 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450215</link>
    <description>HC ruled on GST liability challenge for seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts. Petitioners were allowed to submit objections within four weeks. Assessment proceedings on other notice issues could continue. The court followed precedent from a prior Division Bench judgment, providing a structured approach to resolving the GST liability dispute without definitively settling the core legal question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2025 14:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1366 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450215</link>
      <description>HC ruled on GST liability challenge for seigniorage fee and mining lease amounts. Petitioners were allowed to submit objections within four weeks. Assessment proceedings on other notice issues could continue. The court followed precedent from a prior Division Bench judgment, providing a structured approach to resolving the GST liability dispute without definitively settling the core legal question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>