<?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 (8) TMI 780 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776592</link>
    <description>The writ petition was not entertained because an alternate statutory remedy was available, and the impugned order disclosed no procedural irregularity, legal infirmity, or unreasonableness. The court granted liberty to file a statutory appeal against the order within 15 days of receipt of the order, and directed that if filed within that period, the appellate authority must entertain it and decide it on merits in accordance with law, without reference to limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:27:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=842683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 780 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776592</link>
      <description>The writ petition was not entertained because an alternate statutory remedy was available, and the impugned order disclosed no procedural irregularity, legal infirmity, or unreasonableness. The court granted liberty to file a statutory appeal against the order within 15 days of receipt of the order, and directed that if filed within that period, the appellate authority must entertain it and decide it on merits in accordance with law, without reference to limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>