<?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>2017 (2) TMI 748 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339048</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to challenge assessment orders where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists under the KTEG Act. The inability to pursue that appeal within limitation does not justify bypassing the statutory scheme, because a party cannot ignore the remedy provided by law and later seek writ relief after the appeal period has expired. On that basis, the writ petitions were held not maintainable and were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2017 10:58:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458968" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 748 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339048</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be used to challenge assessment orders where an effective statutory appellate remedy exists under the KTEG Act. The inability to pursue that appeal within limitation does not justify bypassing the statutory scheme, because a party cannot ignore the remedy provided by law and later seek writ relief after the appeal period has expired. On that basis, the writ petitions were held not maintainable and were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339048</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>