<?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 (6) TMI 998 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772885</link>
    <description>SC addressed a complex IGST refund dispute involving export of automobile parts. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that technical procedural errors should not defeat substantive tax refund rights. The court directed respondents to consider the refund claim on merits, provide personal hearing, and pass final orders within four weeks, emphasizing procedural fairness and administrative efficiency in tax dispute resolution.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2025 06:47:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=828999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 998 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772885</link>
      <description>SC addressed a complex IGST refund dispute involving export of automobile parts. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that technical procedural errors should not defeat substantive tax refund rights. The court directed respondents to consider the refund claim on merits, provide personal hearing, and pass final orders within four weeks, emphasizing procedural fairness and administrative efficiency in tax dispute resolution.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>