<?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 (4) TMI 1062 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178574</link>
    <description>Writ petitions challenging orders under the Finance Act were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 85 was available. The High Court noted that the impugned orders were appealable before the Appellate Tribunal and that the petitioners had not exhausted that alternative remedy. On that ground, writ jurisdiction was declined and the petitions were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:23:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 1062 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178574</link>
      <description>Writ petitions challenging orders under the Finance Act were held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory appeal under Section 85 was available. The High Court noted that the impugned orders were appealable before the Appellate Tribunal and that the petitioners had not exhausted that alternative remedy. On that ground, writ jurisdiction was declined and the petitions were dismissed, with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>