<?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 (5) TMI 514 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327533</link>
    <description>The Court quashed the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) as the petitioner was not given the opportunity to file a delay condonation application regarding the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original. The petitioner was allowed to submit a delay condonation application with proper evidence, and the Commissioner(Appeals) was directed to review it based on the evidence provided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Nov 2016 14:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=427907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 514 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327533</link>
      <description>The Court quashed the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) as the petitioner was not given the opportunity to file a delay condonation application regarding the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original. The petitioner was allowed to submit a delay condonation application with proper evidence, and the Commissioner(Appeals) was directed to review it based on the evidence provided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327533</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>