<?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 (11) TMI 1190 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370847</link>
    <description>Coercive recovery steps should not be pursued while a statutory appeal and stay petition remain pending before the appellate authority, because procedural fairness requires the authority to await a decision on the stay request. The respondent was directed to defer coercive action until the appellate authority considers the stay petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1190 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370847</link>
      <description>Coercive recovery steps should not be pursued while a statutory appeal and stay petition remain pending before the appellate authority, because procedural fairness requires the authority to await a decision on the stay request. The respondent was directed to defer coercive action until the appellate authority considers the stay petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>