<?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>2015 (7) TMI 858 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261897</link>
    <description>The High Court remitted the appeal back to the tribunal for a decision on when the limitation period should commence, setting aside the impugned order. The Court refrained from conclusively determining if the appeal should be based on the certified copy, leaving this matter for the tribunal&#039;s further consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (7) TMI 858 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261897</link>
      <description>The High Court remitted the appeal back to the tribunal for a decision on when the limitation period should commence, setting aside the impugned order. The Court refrained from conclusively determining if the appeal should be based on the certified copy, leaving this matter for the tribunal&#039;s further consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261897</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>