<?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 1468 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759224</link>
    <description>Delay of 263 days in filing an appeal against a demand order was treated as supported by reasonable cause where the petitioner stated that the show cause notice and demand order were uploaded on the portal and no hard copy was served. The delay was found bona fide rather than wilful or wanton, so the appellate authority&#039;s rejection of the appeal was set aside. The appeal was directed to be heard and decided on merits after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 22:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770531" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1468 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759224</link>
      <description>Delay of 263 days in filing an appeal against a demand order was treated as supported by reasonable cause where the petitioner stated that the show cause notice and demand order were uploaded on the portal and no hard copy was served. The delay was found bona fide rather than wilful or wanton, so the appellate authority&#039;s rejection of the appeal was set aside. The appeal was directed to be heard and decided on merits after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>