<?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>2024 (7) TMI 46 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754826</link>
    <description>A constitutional challenge to the GST input-tax condition in Section 16(4) read with Rule 61(5) was rejected because the provision had already been upheld by other High Courts applying Supreme Court principles on comparable taxation schemes. With that challenge failing, the court did not examine the merits of the writ against the show cause notice and treated the existence of an effective statutory remedy under the GST enactments as a reason not to entertain the writ petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 11:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=758289" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 46 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754826</link>
      <description>A constitutional challenge to the GST input-tax condition in Section 16(4) read with Rule 61(5) was rejected because the provision had already been upheld by other High Courts applying Supreme Court principles on comparable taxation schemes. With that challenge failing, the court did not examine the merits of the writ against the show cause notice and treated the existence of an effective statutory remedy under the GST enactments as a reason not to entertain the writ petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>