<?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 (7) TMI 774 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774706</link>
    <description>A confirming assessment order must contain an independent, reasoned discussion of the disputed defects; a mere reproduction of the reply and hearing submissions does not show application of mind and cannot sustain the demand to that extent. Because the remaining defects required fresh adjudication on the materials and the petitioner had to be given an opportunity of hearing, the matter was remanded for reconsideration and a fresh speaking order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2025 08:40:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=835508" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 774 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774706</link>
      <description>A confirming assessment order must contain an independent, reasoned discussion of the disputed defects; a mere reproduction of the reply and hearing submissions does not show application of mind and cannot sustain the demand to that extent. Because the remaining defects required fresh adjudication on the materials and the petitioner had to be given an opportunity of hearing, the matter was remanded for reconsideration and a fresh speaking order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774706</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>