<?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 (2) TMI 503 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765957</link>
    <description>Refund rejection was set aside where the authority proceeded on the assumption that supporting documents had not been filed, although the record showed the taxpayer had responded to emails and notice with particulars and documents. The order was found to have ignored the materials placed before the authority and therefore reflected non-application of mind. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2025 14:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=797381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 503 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765957</link>
      <description>Refund rejection was set aside where the authority proceeded on the assumption that supporting documents had not been filed, although the record showed the taxpayer had responded to emails and notice with particulars and documents. The order was found to have ignored the materials placed before the authority and therefore reflected non-application of mind. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765957</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>