<?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 (9) TMI 1012 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758768</link>
    <description>Where an assessee had already filed an appeal against the assessment order, writ jurisdiction was not invoked to decide the assessment on merits. However, because recovery proceedings had been started under the impugned order, the court directed that recovery be deferred until disposal of the pending appeal. The writ petition was thus disposed of with protection limited to the recovery action, leaving the appellate remedy to be decided in the ordinary course.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 18:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1012 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758768</link>
      <description>Where an assessee had already filed an appeal against the assessment order, writ jurisdiction was not invoked to decide the assessment on merits. However, because recovery proceedings had been started under the impugned order, the court directed that recovery be deferred until disposal of the pending appeal. The writ petition was thus disposed of with protection limited to the recovery action, leaving the appellate remedy to be decided in the ordinary course.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758768</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>