<?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 1625 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777437</link>
    <description>A summary demand order in Form DRC-07 could not be sustained where the prescribed prior notice in Form DRC-01 had not been issued. The High Court held that the absence of the mandatory show cause notice and opportunity to reply and be heard rendered the order contrary to law. It set aside the impugned demand order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after service of notice, receipt of the taxpayer&#039;s reply, and a personal hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Aug 2025 08:56:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=846576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 1625 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777437</link>
      <description>A summary demand order in Form DRC-07 could not be sustained where the prescribed prior notice in Form DRC-01 had not been issued. The High Court held that the absence of the mandatory show cause notice and opportunity to reply and be heard rendered the order contrary to law. It set aside the impugned demand order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after service of notice, receipt of the taxpayer&#039;s reply, and a personal hearing.</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=777437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>