<?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>2020 (8) TMI 285 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397342</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash a letter charging GST (Compensation Cess) and demanding a refund, as the petitioner withdrew the petition to raise the dispute in arbitration. The respondent CCL argued the petition was not maintainable, and the CGST did not object to its withdrawal. The court allowed the withdrawal, leaving the petitioner the option to pursue other legal remedies, such as arbitration, if appropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2020 12:18:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619711" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 285 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397342</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash a letter charging GST (Compensation Cess) and demanding a refund, as the petitioner withdrew the petition to raise the dispute in arbitration. The respondent CCL argued the petition was not maintainable, and the CGST did not object to its withdrawal. The court allowed the withdrawal, leaving the petitioner the option to pursue other legal remedies, such as arbitration, if appropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>