<?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 929 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186737</link>
    <description>The Court quashed the Ext.P10 orders and directed the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders on the clarification application after giving the petitioner a hearing within one month. The 1st respondent was instructed to pass fresh assessment orders only after the 3rd respondent complied with the directives in the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:00:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443121" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 929 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186737</link>
      <description>The Court quashed the Ext.P10 orders and directed the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders on the clarification application after giving the petitioner a hearing within one month. The 1st respondent was instructed to pass fresh assessment orders only after the 3rd respondent complied with the directives in the judgment. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186737</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>