<?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 1521 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760922</link>
    <description>An assessment order based on comparing turnover for a single month with the counterparty&#039;s annual return was treated as unsustainable. Although the taxpayer had been issued notice and multiple opportunities, it did not respond to the notice or show-cause notice. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with notice and personal hearing, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand within the stipulated time, and the consequential bank attachment was raised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 May 2025 18:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1521 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760922</link>
      <description>An assessment order based on comparing turnover for a single month with the counterparty&#039;s annual return was treated as unsustainable. Although the taxpayer had been issued notice and multiple opportunities, it did not respond to the notice or show-cause notice. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration with notice and personal hearing, subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax demand within the stipulated time, and the consequential bank attachment was raised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>