<?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 988 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774920</link>
    <description>The Madras HC quashed an order dated 27.02.2025 regarding the petitioner&#039;s ITC claim. The court held that while the claim was barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, it fell within the prescribed period under Section 16(5) of the same Act. The petitioner&#039;s claim for ITC was therefore allowed despite the initial time limitation challenge. The petition was successful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2025 08:17:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=836361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 988 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774920</link>
      <description>The Madras HC quashed an order dated 27.02.2025 regarding the petitioner&#039;s ITC claim. The court held that while the claim was barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, it fell within the prescribed period under Section 16(5) of the same Act. The petitioner&#039;s claim for ITC was therefore allowed despite the initial time limitation challenge. The petition was successful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774920</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>