<?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 1419 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773306</link>
    <description>The HC set aside a GST assessment order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing. The court held that merely uploading a show cause notice on the GST portal, without exploring alternative service modes when no response is received, constitutes ineffective service violating natural justice principles. The court emphasized that tax officers must utilize other prescribed service methods under Section 169 of the GST Act when portal service proves unresponsive. The impugned order was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration with proper procedural safeguards. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount within two weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1419 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773306</link>
      <description>The HC set aside a GST assessment order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing. The court held that merely uploading a show cause notice on the GST portal, without exploring alternative service modes when no response is received, constitutes ineffective service violating natural justice principles. The court emphasized that tax officers must utilize other prescribed service methods under Section 169 of the GST Act when portal service proves unresponsive. The impugned order was quashed and remanded for fresh consideration with proper procedural safeguards. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount within two weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>