<?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 (11) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781201</link>
    <description>HC set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the respondent authority to re-examine whether there is duplication of demand relating to excess ITC claimed in GSTR-3B compared to GSTR-2A, directing consideration under Section 161 as previously requested. If, after fresh consideration, an adverse order is issued, the petitioner may file a consolidated appeal within 30 days of receipt. The petition was disposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 08:17:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781201</link>
      <description>HC set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the respondent authority to re-examine whether there is duplication of demand relating to excess ITC claimed in GSTR-3B compared to GSTR-2A, directing consideration under Section 161 as previously requested. If, after fresh consideration, an adverse order is issued, the petitioner may file a consolidated appeal within 30 days of receipt. The petition was disposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>