<?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 1346 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759102</link>
    <description>The appellate order was quashed because the petitioner had not earlier raised the challenge to levy of cess while computing tax under section 129(1)(a), and the Court held that the issue should first be examined by the appellate authority. Fresh consideration was therefore warranted so the petitioner could urge that ground before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The matter was remanded for decision on the cess issue in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 20:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=770069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1346 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759102</link>
      <description>The appellate order was quashed because the petitioner had not earlier raised the challenge to levy of cess while computing tax under section 129(1)(a), and the Court held that the issue should first be examined by the appellate authority. Fresh consideration was therefore warranted so the petitioner could urge that ground before the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). The matter was remanded for decision on the cess issue in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759102</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>