<?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 (11) TMI 280 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400525</link>
    <description>The revision petition concerned whether the controversy was already covered by binding Division Bench decisions and whether the authorities could verify if the goods purchased by the respondent were included in the respondent&#039;s registration certificates. The excerpt records reliance on prior Division Bench rulings and a request for such verification by the authorities, but it does not disclose any clear final adjudication on the revision petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2020 07:09:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 280 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400525</link>
      <description>The revision petition concerned whether the controversy was already covered by binding Division Bench decisions and whether the authorities could verify if the goods purchased by the respondent were included in the respondent&#039;s registration certificates. The excerpt records reliance on prior Division Bench rulings and a request for such verification by the authorities, but it does not disclose any clear final adjudication on the revision petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400525</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>