<?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 (10) TMI 871 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780075</link>
    <description>Writ petition dismissed by HC for delay and lack of discernible procedural infirmity in the impugned order regarding excess ITC claimed; petitioner filed the petition late and only numbered it after significant delay, and sought redress under Article 226 despite no procedural error shown. Court granted liberty to file an appeal within 15 days, and waived further pre-deposit because the taxed amount confirmed in the demand has already been paid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 871 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780075</link>
      <description>Writ petition dismissed by HC for delay and lack of discernible procedural infirmity in the impugned order regarding excess ITC claimed; petitioner filed the petition late and only numbered it after significant delay, and sought redress under Article 226 despite no procedural error shown. Court granted liberty to file an appeal within 15 days, and waived further pre-deposit because the taxed amount confirmed in the demand has already been paid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>