<?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 (8) TMI 1136 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188430</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the decision to dismiss the penalty under Section 10A of the CST Act, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction of the officer who imposed the penalty. The Court highlighted the importance of adherence to specific legal provisions and the authority designated for penalty imposition, ultimately dismissing the petition and leaving open the possibility of addressing misuse of &#039;C&#039; Forms in the future.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 10:20:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1136 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188430</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the decision to dismiss the penalty under Section 10A of the CST Act, emphasizing the lack of jurisdiction of the officer who imposed the penalty. The Court highlighted the importance of adherence to specific legal provisions and the authority designated for penalty imposition, ultimately dismissing the petition and leaving open the possibility of addressing misuse of &#039;C&#039; Forms in the future.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188430</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>