<?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 1154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766607</link>
    <description>Retrospective amendment to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act was applied to a dispute over input tax credit claimed after the due date, and the impugned denial order could not be sustained in that light. The court noted that similar orders had already been quashed or set aside in connected matters, and the respondent did not dispute the earlier order relied on by the petitioner. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration under the amended provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2025 13:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=802456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1154 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766607</link>
      <description>Retrospective amendment to Section 16(4) of the CGST Act was applied to a dispute over input tax credit claimed after the due date, and the impugned denial order could not be sustained in that light. The court noted that similar orders had already been quashed or set aside in connected matters, and the respondent did not dispute the earlier order relied on by the petitioner. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration under the amended provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>