<?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 1462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759218</link>
    <description>The assessment order was set aside after the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration to ensure fairness and a reasonable opportunity. The petitioner was required to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand, file a reply to the notice, and be given personal hearing before a fresh order was passed. Consequential relief was also granted by directing that the bank attachment be raised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 May 2025 21:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770537" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759218</link>
      <description>The assessment order was set aside after the petitioner did not respond to the show cause notice, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration to ensure fairness and a reasonable opportunity. The petitioner was required to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand, file a reply to the notice, and be given personal hearing before a fresh order was passed. Consequential relief was also granted by directing that the bank attachment be raised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>