<?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>1996 (6) TMI 16 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17376</link>
    <description>The High Court declined to interfere with the criminal complaint in the quashing petition and disposed of the matter without granting relief. It left the petitioners to pursue discharge before the magistrate, relying on the fact that the penalty proceedings had already been dropped. The operative effect is that the complaint was not quashed at this stage, but the petitioners retained the remedy of seeking discharge on the stated ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:25:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56376" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 16 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17376</link>
      <description>The High Court declined to interfere with the criminal complaint in the quashing petition and disposed of the matter without granting relief. It left the petitioners to pursue discharge before the magistrate, relying on the fact that the penalty proceedings had already been dropped. The operative effect is that the complaint was not quashed at this stage, but the petitioners retained the remedy of seeking discharge on the stated ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17376</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>