<?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 746 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754139</link>
    <description>HC allowed appeal against limitation period rejection. Despite delayed filing, court remitted matter back to Appellate Commissioner, directing appeal disposal on merits within three months. Petitioner required to deposit additional tax, and third respondent instructed to de-freeze account after requisite deduction, effectively providing relief from strict procedural constraints.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 May 2025 13:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 746 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754139</link>
      <description>HC allowed appeal against limitation period rejection. Despite delayed filing, court remitted matter back to Appellate Commissioner, directing appeal disposal on merits within three months. Petitioner required to deposit additional tax, and third respondent instructed to de-freeze account after requisite deduction, effectively providing relief from strict procedural constraints.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>