<?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 463 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770191</link>
    <description>A rectification rejection challenge under the TNGST Act, 2017 arose after the petitioner failed to produce e-way bills and invoices. The Madras HC noted the availability of an appeal remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) under Section 107 and permitted the petitioner to pursue that statutory appeal with all grounds raised in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the rectification dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 09:09:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820275" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 463 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770191</link>
      <description>A rectification rejection challenge under the TNGST Act, 2017 arose after the petitioner failed to produce e-way bills and invoices. The Madras HC noted the availability of an appeal remedy before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) under Section 107 and permitted the petitioner to pursue that statutory appeal with all grounds raised in the writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the rectification dispute.</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=770191</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>