<?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>1998 (6) TMI 34 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15834</link>
    <description>The High Court remanded the case to the second respondent for fresh disposal, concluding that justice would be served. The court refrained from extensive merit review to avoid interfering with authorities&#039; jurisdiction. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and the second respondent directed to dispose of the matter within ninety days, affording the petitioner an opportunity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:48:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54834" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 34 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15834</link>
      <description>The High Court remanded the case to the second respondent for fresh disposal, concluding that justice would be served. The court refrained from extensive merit review to avoid interfering with authorities&#039; jurisdiction. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order quashed, and the second respondent directed to dispose of the matter within ninety days, affording the petitioner an opportunity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15834</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>