<?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 (8) TMI 904 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797030</link>
    <description>A tax-demand order issued after the taxpayer allegedly remained unaware of the show-cause notice because the business had closed was remitted for fresh adjudication. No merits determination was made. The claimed earlier tax recovery requires verification, and the taxpayer may submit a reply with supporting documents after paying any unrecovered balance of the disputed tax. Fresh consideration is therefore conditional on compliance with the stipulated payment and reply requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 07:18:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917008" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 904 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797030</link>
      <description>A tax-demand order issued after the taxpayer allegedly remained unaware of the show-cause notice because the business had closed was remitted for fresh adjudication. No merits determination was made. The claimed earlier tax recovery requires verification, and the taxpayer may submit a reply with supporting documents after paying any unrecovered balance of the disputed tax. Fresh consideration is therefore conditional on compliance with the stipulated payment and reply requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=797030</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>