<?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>2023 (11) TMI 1332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460046</link>
    <description>The HC ruled that the provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act expired after one year, and the bank must allow account operations. The court found the attachment order invalid due to lack of extension communication, emphasizing that tax authorities cannot indefinitely restrict bank accounts without proper legal procedure. The ruling prioritized procedural compliance over revenue protection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=787463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 1332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460046</link>
      <description>The HC ruled that the provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act expired after one year, and the bank must allow account operations. The court found the attachment order invalid due to lack of extension communication, emphasizing that tax authorities cannot indefinitely restrict bank accounts without proper legal procedure. The ruling prioritized procedural compliance over revenue protection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>