<?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 (10) TMI 376 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800433</link>
    <description>Subsequent GST registration was directed to be restored where the taxpayer had neither carried on business under an earlier cancelled registration nor sought its revival. Maintaining cancellation of the later registration would have prevented the taxpayer from conducting business and discharging GST obligations. As no impediment to restoration was identified, the later registration could be restored without reviving the earlier registration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2026 08:13:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=928089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 376 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800433</link>
      <description>Subsequent GST registration was directed to be restored where the taxpayer had neither carried on business under an earlier cancelled registration nor sought its revival. Maintaining cancellation of the later registration would have prevented the taxpayer from conducting business and discharging GST obligations. As no impediment to restoration was identified, the later registration could be restored without reviving the earlier registration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=800433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>