<?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 1443 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775375</link>
    <description>Rectification is confined to patent errors apparent on the face of the original assessment order and cannot reopen factual controversies. Where an assessment followed a show-cause notice and no reply was filed, disputes concerning mismatches in returns required examination during assessment rather than rectification. The rectification order therefore warranted no interference, and the writ petition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2025 08:40:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1443 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775375</link>
      <description>Rectification is confined to patent errors apparent on the face of the original assessment order and cannot reopen factual controversies. Where an assessment followed a show-cause notice and no reply was filed, disputes concerning mismatches in returns required examination during assessment rather than rectification. The rectification order therefore warranted no interference, and the writ petition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>