<?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 (5) TMI 898 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343160</link>
    <description>The court allowed the review petitions, recalling the dismissal order and restoring the writ petitions to the file. Both parties were permitted to present their arguments anew, with no decision on the merits made at that point. No costs were awarded. The court emphasized the need to examine the jurisdictional and legislative competency challenges raised by the petitioner, which were not adequately addressed in the initial disposal of the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 07:52:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469134" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 898 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343160</link>
      <description>The court allowed the review petitions, recalling the dismissal order and restoring the writ petitions to the file. Both parties were permitted to present their arguments anew, with no decision on the merits made at that point. No costs were awarded. The court emphasized the need to examine the jurisdictional and legislative competency challenges raised by the petitioner, which were not adequately addressed in the initial disposal of the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>