<?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 1528 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760929</link>
    <description>The assessment order was quashed for breach of natural justice because the assessee had not been effectively heard before the impugned order was passed. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand and filing a reply within the stipulated time. On compliance, the authority was required to provide a reasonable opportunity, including personal hearing, and then pass a fresh order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 18:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1528 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760929</link>
      <description>The assessment order was quashed for breach of natural justice because the assessee had not been effectively heard before the impugned order was passed. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand and filing a reply within the stipulated time. On compliance, the authority was required to provide a reasonable opportunity, including personal hearing, and then pass a fresh order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>