<?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 (9) TMI 1446 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307635</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether the HC could direct the revenue authority to grant amnesty relief under the SVLDR Scheme by extending the statutory period. Relying on the SC&#039;s binding decision holding that courts cannot extend the time-limit prescribed under the Scheme or compel authorities to entertain belated claims, the HC held that no writ could issue to confer SVLDR benefits beyond the permitted period. The petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 14:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=711757" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (9) TMI 1446 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307635</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether the HC could direct the revenue authority to grant amnesty relief under the SVLDR Scheme by extending the statutory period. Relying on the SC&#039;s binding decision holding that courts cannot extend the time-limit prescribed under the Scheme or compel authorities to entertain belated claims, the HC held that no writ could issue to confer SVLDR benefits beyond the permitted period. The petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>