<?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 (12) TMI 997 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209502</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners were liable to pay interest as per Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003. The interim order was vacated, and there was no order as to costs. The court emphasized that the benefits derived from an interim order do not create a right to claim exemption from statutory interest, and the retrospective amendment and recovery mechanisms under Section 154 were valid and enforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182949" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 997 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209502</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the petitioners were liable to pay interest as per Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003. The interim order was vacated, and there was no order as to costs. The court emphasized that the benefits derived from an interim order do not create a right to claim exemption from statutory interest, and the retrospective amendment and recovery mechanisms under Section 154 were valid and enforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>