<?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 516 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751335</link>
    <description>SC set aside the Order-in-Appeal challenging a refund claim under IGST Act. The court clarified that the specification of recipient for reverse charge was clarificatory, not changing the taxable person. The respondents were directed to process the petitioner&#039;s refund claim with applicable interest within 3 months. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 12:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 516 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751335</link>
      <description>SC set aside the Order-in-Appeal challenging a refund claim under IGST Act. The court clarified that the specification of recipient for reverse charge was clarificatory, not changing the taxable person. The respondents were directed to process the petitioner&#039;s refund claim with applicable interest within 3 months. The Writ Petition was allowed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751335</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>