<?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>Case law</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=964</link>
    <description>No higher-court decision was identified striking down the Finance Act, 1994 provision or declaring the two penal provisions mutually exclusive; a legislative amendment adds a proviso preventing penalties under both provisions in the same case, which may be argued to be clarificatory and retrospectively applicable, and a constitutional objection to dual penalties may be urged.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:34:48 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2025 15:58:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=315440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Case law</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=964</link>
      <description>No higher-court decision was identified striking down the Finance Act, 1994 provision or declaring the two penal provisions mutually exclusive; a legislative amendment adds a proviso preventing penalties under both provisions in the same case, which may be argued to be clarificatory and retrospectively applicable, and a constitutional objection to dual penalties may be urged.</description>
      <category>Discussion-Forum</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:34:48 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/forum/issue?id=964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>