<?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>1982 (12) TMI 164 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153638</link>
    <description>The Karnataka HC noted that the certificate for recovery of alleged sales tax arrears originated in Maharashtra, so any challenge to that certificate or the related recovery proceedings had to be brought before the court with jurisdiction over that State. It declined to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction over actions taken by another State and treated the Bombay High Court as the proper forum for the petitioners&#039; grievance. The petitions were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:51:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (12) TMI 164 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153638</link>
      <description>The Karnataka HC noted that the certificate for recovery of alleged sales tax arrears originated in Maharashtra, so any challenge to that certificate or the related recovery proceedings had to be brought before the court with jurisdiction over that State. It declined to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction over actions taken by another State and treated the Bombay High Court as the proper forum for the petitioners&#039; grievance. The petitions were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>