<?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 667 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766120</link>
    <description>A writ challenge to an ex parte GST demand and the consequential bank account freeze was not entertained because an adequate statutory appellate remedy existed under the GST law. The High Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate route with the requisite pre-deposit, leaving the merits of the demand to be examined in that forum. The order reflects judicial restraint where a specific tax appeal mechanism is available and operational relief is sought against recovery action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:10:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=798897" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 667 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766120</link>
      <description>A writ challenge to an ex parte GST demand and the consequential bank account freeze was not entertained because an adequate statutory appellate remedy existed under the GST law. The High Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate route with the requisite pre-deposit, leaving the merits of the demand to be examined in that forum. The order reflects judicial restraint where a specific tax appeal mechanism is available and operational relief is sought against recovery action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766120</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>