<?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>2026 (1) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784739</link>
    <description>The challenge based on natural justice failed because the petitioner&#039;s reply had already been considered and disposed of by the respondent, so no interference was warranted on merits. The assessing officer was held not competent to grant waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A of the GST enactments. However, the concerned authorities were directed to consider the Form GST SPL-02 application and decide it in accordance with law within six weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jan 2026 08:26:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784739</link>
      <description>The challenge based on natural justice failed because the petitioner&#039;s reply had already been considered and disposed of by the respondent, so no interference was warranted on merits. The assessing officer was held not competent to grant waiver of interest and penalty under Section 128A of the GST enactments. However, the concerned authorities were directed to consider the Form GST SPL-02 application and decide it in accordance with law within six weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>