https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790792 The High Court did not decide the merits of the interest demand and instead directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representations on merits. The respondent was required to take into account the decisions cited by the Court, including the earlier Madras High Court rulings referred to in the record, and to pass a reasoned order after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was thus disposed of without adjudicating the substantive liability, leaving the interest issue to be determined by the respondent in accordance with the referenced judgments and after hearing the petitioner. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2026 07:19:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790792 The High Court did not decide the merits of the interest demand and instead directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representations on merits. The respondent was required to take into account the decisions cited by the Court, including the earlier Madras High Court rulings referred to in the record, and to pass a reasoned order after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was thus disposed of without adjudicating the substantive liability, leaving the interest issue to be determined by the respondent in accordance with the referenced judgments and after hearing the petitioner. Case-Laws GST Tue, 24 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790792