<?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 (9) TMI 895 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758651</link>
    <description>Non-compliance with an earlier payment direction was treated as a prima facie basis for contempt because the prior judgment had attained finality for the time being and the pending review petition did not excuse withholding compliance. Continued non-payment despite the direction was viewed as sufficient to invoke contempt jurisdiction at the notice stage, and notice was issued to the alleged contemnors with a direction to file a show-cause reply within two weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=768445" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 895 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758651</link>
      <description>Non-compliance with an earlier payment direction was treated as a prima facie basis for contempt because the prior judgment had attained finality for the time being and the pending review petition did not excuse withholding compliance. Continued non-payment despite the direction was viewed as sufficient to invoke contempt jurisdiction at the notice stage, and notice was issued to the alleged contemnors with a direction to file a show-cause reply within two weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>