<?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 666 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781198</link>
    <description>HC quashed the impugned order in FORM GST DRC-07 and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order. The court noted the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 had expired and directed that, to balance interests, the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receipt of the order; the court indicated deposits may range from 25% to 100% depending on delay. Petition disposed by remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 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=863873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 666 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781198</link>
      <description>HC quashed the impugned order in FORM GST DRC-07 and remitted the matter to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order. The court noted the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 had expired and directed that, to balance interests, the petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax from its Electronic Cash Register within 30 days of receipt of the order; the court indicated deposits may range from 25% to 100% depending on delay. Petition disposed by remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781198</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>