<?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 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752981</link>
    <description>The HC found that the tax authority&#039;s notice via portal was insufficient. The court set aside the tax order, granted the petitioner two weeks to respond to the show cause notice, and directed the authority to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing, including lifting the bank account attachment. The matter was remanded for reconsideration within three months.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 16:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=753908" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752981</link>
      <description>The HC found that the tax authority&#039;s notice via portal was insufficient. The court set aside the tax order, granted the petitioner two weeks to respond to the show cause notice, and directed the authority to provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing, including lifting the bank account attachment. The matter was remanded for reconsideration within three months.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752981</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>