<?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 (4) TMI 278 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751097</link>
    <description>HC examined a GST assessment challenge where a small business owner contested a tax order due to consultant&#039;s non-communication. The court quashed the original assessment order, directing the petitioner to remit 10% of disputed tax within two weeks and allowing submission of a reply to the show cause notice. A fresh assessment order must be issued within two months, and the bank attachment was immediately lifted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 278 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751097</link>
      <description>HC examined a GST assessment challenge where a small business owner contested a tax order due to consultant&#039;s non-communication. The court quashed the original assessment order, directing the petitioner to remit 10% of disputed tax within two weeks and allowing submission of a reply to the show cause notice. A fresh assessment order must be issued within two months, and the bank attachment was immediately lifted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>