<?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>2010 (4) TMI 368 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77545</link>
    <description>The court affirmed that the communication dated 9-1-2006 was an appealable order under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, issued without due process. It held that the letter altered the assessee&#039;s rights without following legal procedures, making it an order under Section 84. The court directed a fresh order be passed in compliance with the Act&#039;s requirements, dismissing the appeal and ruling against the Revenue on the substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115711" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 368 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77545</link>
      <description>The court affirmed that the communication dated 9-1-2006 was an appealable order under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, issued without due process. It held that the letter altered the assessee&#039;s rights without following legal procedures, making it an order under Section 84. The court directed a fresh order be passed in compliance with the Act&#039;s requirements, dismissing the appeal and ruling against the Revenue on the substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>