<?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 (6) TMI 431 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753824</link>
    <description>HC Madras quashed a GST assessment order due to violation of natural justice principles. The court found the tax authority failed to provide adequate notice to the petitioner, who was unaware of proceedings. The HC directed the petitioner to pay 10% of disputed tax, allowed filing a reply, and mandated the authority to provide a personal hearing and issue a fresh assessment order within two months, effectively suspending the bank attachment order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 14:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756018" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 431 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753824</link>
      <description>HC Madras quashed a GST assessment order due to violation of natural justice principles. The court found the tax authority failed to provide adequate notice to the petitioner, who was unaware of proceedings. The HC directed the petitioner to pay 10% of disputed tax, allowed filing a reply, and mandated the authority to provide a personal hearing and issue a fresh assessment order within two months, effectively suspending the bank attachment order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>