<?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 (7) TMI 246 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755026</link>
    <description>The assessment order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration because the documents produced, including work orders, municipal communications and certificates, prima facie supported the claim that the activities were pure service contracts eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017. The court noted that the exemption claim had to be proved by placing all relevant documents on record, and since the disputed demand on that issue formed a substantial part of the overall demand, the petitioner was to be given a further opportunity to file additional documents and be heard personally before reconsideration. Compliance with the condition imposed by the court was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 17:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 246 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755026</link>
      <description>The assessment order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration because the documents produced, including work orders, municipal communications and certificates, prima facie supported the claim that the activities were pure service contracts eligible for exemption under Notification No. 12/2017. The court noted that the exemption claim had to be proved by placing all relevant documents on record, and since the disputed demand on that issue formed a substantial part of the overall demand, the petitioner was to be given a further opportunity to file additional documents and be heard personally before reconsideration. Compliance with the condition imposed by the court was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>