<?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 917 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764853</link>
    <description>An adjudication order was set aside because the authority proceeded as if no reply had been filed, even though the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. The High Court treated the omission to consider the filed reply as a fairness defect in the decision-making process and accepted the respondent&#039;s statement that the reply would be reconsidered. Fresh consideration was therefore directed after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=790181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 917 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764853</link>
      <description>An adjudication order was set aside because the authority proceeded as if no reply had been filed, even though the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show-cause notice. The High Court treated the omission to consider the filed reply as a fairness defect in the decision-making process and accepted the respondent&#039;s statement that the reply would be reconsidered. Fresh consideration was therefore directed after granting the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=764853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>