<?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>2019 (1) TMI 125 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372960</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions was condoned, allowing the petitions to be considered. The Supreme Court then declined to entertain them in the exercise of its discretion because the tax effect was very low, and disposed of the matters without deciding the underlying question of law. The substantive issue was expressly left open, so the order reflects only a procedural and threshold-based refusal to proceed on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2019 06:27:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=550872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 125 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372960</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions was condoned, allowing the petitions to be considered. The Supreme Court then declined to entertain them in the exercise of its discretion because the tax effect was very low, and disposed of the matters without deciding the underlying question of law. The substantive issue was expressly left open, so the order reflects only a procedural and threshold-based refusal to proceed on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>