<?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 1608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775540</link>
    <description>Refund claims relating to ocean freight were found to be covered by the earlier binding position in Mohit Minerals, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of that settled legal position, the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims could not be sustained and the challenge to them did not survive. The writ petitions were allowed and the petitioner succeeded on the refund issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 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=838762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775540</link>
      <description>Refund claims relating to ocean freight were found to be covered by the earlier binding position in Mohit Minerals, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of that settled legal position, the impugned orders rejecting the refund claims could not be sustained and the challenge to them did not survive. The writ petitions were allowed and the petitioner succeeded on the refund issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>