<?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 1203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755983</link>
    <description>HC ruled on a GST penalty dispute involving explosive goods transportation. Petitioner challenged notices for not generating e-invoices, contesting a 200% penalty. Court directed respondent to complete adjudication within four weeks, allowing petitioner to respond to revised notice. The judgment emphasized procedural fairness and the need for comprehensive assessment of goods&#039; exemption status without definitively resolving the underlying tax dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 17:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=761458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1203 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755983</link>
      <description>HC ruled on a GST penalty dispute involving explosive goods transportation. Petitioner challenged notices for not generating e-invoices, contesting a 200% penalty. Court directed respondent to complete adjudication within four weeks, allowing petitioner to respond to revised notice. The judgment emphasized procedural fairness and the need for comprehensive assessment of goods&#039; exemption status without definitively resolving the underlying tax dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755983</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>