<?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>2018 (9) TMI 1215 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367479</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Ext.P5 order and directing the second respondent to review and decide on the Ext.P4 rectification application. This clarifies the jurisdictional aspect of considering rectification applications under the Finance Act, emphasizing the importance of proper authority review.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:24:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=535242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 1215 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367479</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Ext.P5 order and directing the second respondent to review and decide on the Ext.P4 rectification application. This clarifies the jurisdictional aspect of considering rectification applications under the Finance Act, emphasizing the importance of proper authority review.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>