<?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 1005 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164888</link>
    <description>The court held that financial difficulty cannot justify avoiding payment of additional court fees for a statutory appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Order XLIV and Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure were deemed inapplicable to proceedings before the Tribunal. The court dismissed the petitioner&#039;s challenge against the additional court fee requirement, citing previous judgments, and found the attempt to raise the same grounds in a fresh writ petition as an abuse of the court process. The court dismissed the writ petition with costs and directed the registry to recover the costs from the Department of Finance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=354858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 1005 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164888</link>
      <description>The court held that financial difficulty cannot justify avoiding payment of additional court fees for a statutory appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Order XLIV and Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure were deemed inapplicable to proceedings before the Tribunal. The court dismissed the petitioner&#039;s challenge against the additional court fee requirement, citing previous judgments, and found the attempt to raise the same grounds in a fresh writ petition as an abuse of the court process. The court dismissed the writ petition with costs and directed the registry to recover the costs from the Department of Finance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=164888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>