<?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 379 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752326</link>
    <description>The HC quashed the impugned Order in Original, acknowledging the petitioner&#039;s failure to respond to the show cause notice but considering the payment of disputed tax and jurisdictional issues. The case was remitted for fresh orders within 90 days, contingent on the petitioner submitting a detailed reply. The bank account attachment order was vacated, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2024 08:39:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 379 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752326</link>
      <description>The HC quashed the impugned Order in Original, acknowledging the petitioner&#039;s failure to respond to the show cause notice but considering the payment of disputed tax and jurisdictional issues. The case was remitted for fresh orders within 90 days, contingent on the petitioner submitting a detailed reply. The bank account attachment order was vacated, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752326</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>