<?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 1446 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777258</link>
    <description>Notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST enactments were treated as unsustainable, and the limitation period was required to be reckoned in the manner indicated by the Supreme Court&#039;s Article 142 order. On that basis, the impugned assessment orders could not be sustained. The respondents were nevertheless left free to proceed further in accordance with law and the interim order referred to in the judgment, and the matters were remitted for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846053" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1446 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777258</link>
      <description>Notifications issued under Section 168A of the GST enactments were treated as unsustainable, and the limitation period was required to be reckoned in the manner indicated by the Supreme Court&#039;s Article 142 order. On that basis, the impugned assessment orders could not be sustained. The respondents were nevertheless left free to proceed further in accordance with law and the interim order referred to in the judgment, and the matters were remitted for fresh consideration on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>