<?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 1513 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756293</link>
    <description>HC allowed the petitioner&#039;s challenge to a tax demand order, finding insufficient opportunity to contest the original assessment. The court set aside the order, remanded the matter for reconsideration, and directed the petitioner to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax. The first respondent must provide a fair hearing and issue a fresh order within three months, with the bank attachment lifted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 16:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1513 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756293</link>
      <description>HC allowed the petitioner&#039;s challenge to a tax demand order, finding insufficient opportunity to contest the original assessment. The court set aside the order, remanded the matter for reconsideration, and directed the petitioner to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax. The first respondent must provide a fair hearing and issue a fresh order within three months, with the bank attachment lifted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756293</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>