<?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 (3) TMI 888 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767502</link>
    <description>HC condoned a 210-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the petitioner&#039;s claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice genuine. The court directed the Appellate Authority to admit the appeal despite limitation, subject to payment of an additional 15% of the disputed tax demand on top of the already paid 10% statutory pre-deposit (total 25%). The petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 14:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=807287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 888 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767502</link>
      <description>HC condoned a 210-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the petitioner&#039;s claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice genuine. The court directed the Appellate Authority to admit the appeal despite limitation, subject to payment of an additional 15% of the disputed tax demand on top of the already paid 10% statutory pre-deposit (total 25%). The petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>