<?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>2021 (4) TMI 430 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406314</link>
    <description>The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners as the arrest procedure was not followed in accordance with the law and the amount involved did not meet the threshold for arrest as per Circular No.201/11/2016-Service Tax. The petitioners had paid 50% of the tax dues and were willing to comply with further recovery actions. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the ongoing proceedings before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=641480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 430 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406314</link>
      <description>The Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioners as the arrest procedure was not followed in accordance with the law and the amount involved did not meet the threshold for arrest as per Circular No.201/11/2016-Service Tax. The petitioners had paid 50% of the tax dues and were willing to comply with further recovery actions. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions and quashed the ongoing proceedings before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406314</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>