<?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>2008 (5) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30522</link>
    <description>A demand notice served before the effective date of the validating enactment was held to be covered by the statutory validation under Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, so the demand was treated as validated. On that basis, the challenge in the appeal could not survive and no substantial question of law was found to arise. The appeal was therefore found to be without merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69177" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30522</link>
      <description>A demand notice served before the effective date of the validating enactment was held to be covered by the statutory validation under Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, so the demand was treated as validated. On that basis, the challenge in the appeal could not survive and no substantial question of law was found to arise. The appeal was therefore found to be without merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>