<?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 (12) TMI 59 - HIMACHAL PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16075</link>
    <description>The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the assessment orders and directing reassessment of tax based on its interpretation. The court held that the tax should apply to rooms with charges above specified rates, not the entire hotel receipts. Writ petitions were deemed maintainable despite alternative remedies, given the statutory interpretation issues. Assessing authorities were instructed to reassess taxes focusing on customer expenditures. Interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:09:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 59 - HIMACHAL PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16075</link>
      <description>The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the assessment orders and directing reassessment of tax based on its interpretation. The court held that the tax should apply to rooms with charges above specified rates, not the entire hotel receipts. Writ petitions were deemed maintainable despite alternative remedies, given the statutory interpretation issues. Assessing authorities were instructed to reassess taxes focusing on customer expenditures. Interim orders were vacated, and no costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16075</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>