<?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>2013 (1) TMI 880 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185632</link>
    <description>Where an appeal and stay application were pending and the delay in filing the appeal had already been condoned, the High Court did not examine the penalty order on merits. It directed the appellate authority to consider and decide the stay application within a fixed time, and ordered coercive recovery proceedings to remain in abeyance until that decision was taken.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 12:58:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 880 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185632</link>
      <description>Where an appeal and stay application were pending and the delay in filing the appeal had already been condoned, the High Court did not examine the penalty order on merits. It directed the appellate authority to consider and decide the stay application within a fixed time, and ordered coercive recovery proceedings to remain in abeyance until that decision was taken.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185632</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>