<?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 (8) TMI 1433 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757729</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging withdrawal of immunity granted by the Settlement Commission. The petitioner failed to pay 25% of tax demand by the specified deadline and subsequent installments as required under the settlement order. The court held that immunity automatically ceased upon non-compliance with payment conditions, and the Central Government&#039;s communication merely permitted further proceedings rather than actively withdrawing immunity. The court found no merit in the petitioner&#039;s claim of lack of hearing, noting non-payment of even minimal amounts. An earlier interim order by another Division Bench was also rendered ineffective due to the petitioner&#039;s continued non-compliance with payment undertakings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2024 07:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=766029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1433 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757729</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging withdrawal of immunity granted by the Settlement Commission. The petitioner failed to pay 25% of tax demand by the specified deadline and subsequent installments as required under the settlement order. The court held that immunity automatically ceased upon non-compliance with payment conditions, and the Central Government&#039;s communication merely permitted further proceedings rather than actively withdrawing immunity. The court found no merit in the petitioner&#039;s claim of lack of hearing, noting non-payment of even minimal amounts. An earlier interim order by another Division Bench was also rendered ineffective due to the petitioner&#039;s continued non-compliance with payment undertakings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>