<?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 1614 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775546</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the petition challenging the impugned assessment order, holding that duplication of assessment proceedings for the same period is not permissible under the enactment. The petitioner had already undergone an assessment for the same period by the State Tax Officer. The court permitted the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings to include any differential amount within the earlier assessment if allowed by law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2025 08:39:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=838756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1614 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775546</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the petition challenging the impugned assessment order, holding that duplication of assessment proceedings for the same period is not permissible under the enactment. The petitioner had already undergone an assessment for the same period by the State Tax Officer. The court permitted the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings to include any differential amount within the earlier assessment if allowed by law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>