<?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 (11) TMI 221 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34822</link>
    <description>A Tribunal remand that merely restored the matter so the assessee could be given an opportunity of hearing was treated as raising no substantial question of law. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had not finally adjudicated the penalty dispute but had only sent the matter back for fresh consideration after curing the hearing defect. On that basis, appellate interference was not warranted and the remand order was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 221 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34822</link>
      <description>A Tribunal remand that merely restored the matter so the assessee could be given an opportunity of hearing was treated as raising no substantial question of law. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had not finally adjudicated the penalty dispute but had only sent the matter back for fresh consideration after curing the hearing defect. On that basis, appellate interference was not warranted and the remand order was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34822</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>