<?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>2025 (1) TMI 883 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764819</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging a show cause notice under the CGST Act. The court held that the petition was premature, as the petitioner had alternative remedies available and should first respond to the notice by filing objections. The court found no procedural irregularities in the notice&#039;s issuance and emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be used to quash show cause notices without clear jurisdictional defects.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 16:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=789922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 883 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764819</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging a show cause notice under the CGST Act. The court held that the petition was premature, as the petitioner had alternative remedies available and should first respond to the notice by filing objections. The court found no procedural irregularities in the notice&#039;s issuance and emphasized that writ jurisdiction should not be used to quash show cause notices without clear jurisdictional defects.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>