<?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 (5) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752208</link>
    <description>The SC reviewed a tax demand case where the petitioner challenged an order due to lack of opportunity to contest merits. The court set aside the original order, directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax and allowing submission of a reply. The respondent must provide a fair hearing and issue a fresh order within two months, effectively giving the petitioner a chance to present their case while partially securing the tax claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 17:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752047" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 261 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752208</link>
      <description>The SC reviewed a tax demand case where the petitioner challenged an order due to lack of opportunity to contest merits. The court set aside the original order, directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax and allowing submission of a reply. The respondent must provide a fair hearing and issue a fresh order within two months, effectively giving the petitioner a chance to present their case while partially securing the tax claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>