<?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 (5) TMI 143 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769871</link>
    <description>The HC upheld the tax authority&#039;s assessment order imposing differential ITC demand, interest, and penalty under GST laws. The Court found the order legally valid, rejecting the appellant&#039;s arguments that the ITC mismatch was a rectifiable error. The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the appellant to pursue the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act after complying with prescribed conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 08:54:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 143 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769871</link>
      <description>The HC upheld the tax authority&#039;s assessment order imposing differential ITC demand, interest, and penalty under GST laws. The Court found the order legally valid, rejecting the appellant&#039;s arguments that the ITC mismatch was a rectifiable error. The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the appellant to pursue the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act after complying with prescribed conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>