<?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 (9) TMI 366 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263698</link>
    <description>The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal challenging the order of CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, regarding tax assessment for logistic services. The Court found in favor of the appellant, noting a delayed notice of the order served on an employee of a sister concern, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within six weeks, restoring the appeal to the Tribunal for further consideration on merits, along with pending appeals for previous years. The Court clarified that the deposit condition was specific to the case and not a precedent for future cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 366 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263698</link>
      <description>The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal challenging the order of CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore, regarding tax assessment for logistic services. The Court found in favor of the appellant, noting a delayed notice of the order served on an employee of a sister concern, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a specified amount within six weeks, restoring the appeal to the Tribunal for further consideration on merits, along with pending appeals for previous years. The Court clarified that the deposit condition was specific to the case and not a precedent for future cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>