<?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 (10) TMI 1433 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760834</link>
    <description>Mandatory compliance with the statutory requirement of a personal hearing was treated as essential before an adverse assessment order could be sustained. The notice and assessment records did not show that such hearing had been afforded, so the assessment was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and receive a personal hearing, and the attachment orders were directed to be raised consequentially.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 19:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1433 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760834</link>
      <description>Mandatory compliance with the statutory requirement of a personal hearing was treated as essential before an adverse assessment order could be sustained. The notice and assessment records did not show that such hearing had been afforded, so the assessment was set aside. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and receive a personal hearing, and the attachment orders were directed to be raised consequentially.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>