<?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>2009 (1) TMI 795 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163851</link>
    <description>A quasi-judicial endorsement issued on an application was invalid because it was made without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Compliance with the principles of natural justice was required before taking such action, and the denial of a reasonable hearing vitiated the endorsement. The endorsement was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:55:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 795 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163851</link>
      <description>A quasi-judicial endorsement issued on an application was invalid because it was made without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Compliance with the principles of natural justice was required before taking such action, and the denial of a reasonable hearing vitiated the endorsement. The endorsement was therefore set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>