<?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 1255 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754648</link>
    <description>HC partially allowed the writ petition challenging a tax assessment order. The court quashed the original order and remitted the case for fresh proceedings, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of disputed tax within 30 days and respond to show cause notices. The decision recognized the petitioner as a small-time dealer and provided an opportunity to explain tax credit discrepancies while ensuring procedural fairness.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 May 2025 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1255 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754648</link>
      <description>HC partially allowed the writ petition challenging a tax assessment order. The court quashed the original order and remitted the case for fresh proceedings, directing the petitioner to deposit 30% of disputed tax within 30 days and respond to show cause notices. The decision recognized the petitioner as a small-time dealer and provided an opportunity to explain tax credit discrepancies while ensuring procedural fairness.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>