<?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>2016 (2) TMI 173 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271468</link>
    <description>Writ appeals challenging service tax orders were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available under the Finance Act. The challenge was directed mainly against the merits of the tax demand, while no specific jurisdictional defect at the threshold was shown to justify bypassing the alternative remedy. The High Court therefore found the writ court&#039;s refusal to entertain the petitions justified and upheld dismissal of the writ petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415580" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 173 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271468</link>
      <description>Writ appeals challenging service tax orders were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appellate remedy was available under the Finance Act. The challenge was directed mainly against the merits of the tax demand, while no specific jurisdictional defect at the threshold was shown to justify bypassing the alternative remedy. The High Court therefore found the writ court&#039;s refusal to entertain the petitions justified and upheld dismissal of the writ petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>