<?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 (9) TMI 990 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165396</link>
    <description>A conditional interim stay against a reassessment was found unwarranted where the demand appeared prima facie inconsistent with an earlier Supreme Court declaration on telecommunications. The court treated that ruling as governing telecom transactions more broadly, including the principle that the message is transmitted and electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies are not goods for constitutional purposes. Because the reassessment raised a substantial question requiring final adjudication and no reasons supported the onerous pre-deposit, the deposit condition was set aside and the assessee received interlocutory protection pending merits hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=358737" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 990 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165396</link>
      <description>A conditional interim stay against a reassessment was found unwarranted where the demand appeared prima facie inconsistent with an earlier Supreme Court declaration on telecommunications. The court treated that ruling as governing telecom transactions more broadly, including the principle that the message is transmitted and electromagnetic waves or radio frequencies are not goods for constitutional purposes. Because the reassessment raised a substantial question requiring final adjudication and no reasons supported the onerous pre-deposit, the deposit condition was set aside and the assessee received interlocutory protection pending merits hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>