<?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>2022 (3) TMI 625 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419587</link>
    <description>The HC concluded that the payments made by the company were not voluntary under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act and were involuntarily made. Allegations of high-handed conduct by DGGI officers could not be adjudicated in this proceeding. The writ petition was filed within the statutory period, with no delay or laches. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge&#039;s findings with modifications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Sep 2024 16:16:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=672938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 625 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419587</link>
      <description>The HC concluded that the payments made by the company were not voluntary under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act and were involuntarily made. Allegations of high-handed conduct by DGGI officers could not be adjudicated in this proceeding. The writ petition was filed within the statutory period, with no delay or laches. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the learned Single Judge&#039;s findings with modifications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>