<?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 474 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753867</link>
    <description>GST intimations concerning seigniorage fee and mining lease were not independently adjudicated at this stage. The matter was disposed of in line with directions in connected cases, requiring objections to be filed and the authority to decide the issue on merits after hearing, while the pending larger ruling on royalty-related GST issues was to govern action. The petitioner was given liberty to submit a reply to the intimation within four weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 474 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753867</link>
      <description>GST intimations concerning seigniorage fee and mining lease were not independently adjudicated at this stage. The matter was disposed of in line with directions in connected cases, requiring objections to be filed and the authority to decide the issue on merits after hearing, while the pending larger ruling on royalty-related GST issues was to govern action. The petitioner was given liberty to submit a reply to the intimation within four weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>