<?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>Dismissal of Review Petitions: Court Upholds Interest Refund Order, Cites Procedural Lapses.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84097</link>
    <description>In the matter under review, the High Court dismissed the review petitions filed by the parties. The Court held that no grounds were established for seeking a review of the order directing the refund of interest amount. The Court observed that the insufficient time to check calculations during the initial proceedings cannot be a ground for review. Regarding a letter from January 2014, which the Review Petitioner admitted was not brought to the Court&#039;s notice earlier, the Court stated that while it can be relied upon in the enquiry to fix responsibility for non-renewal of FD, it does not warrant a review of the Court&#039;s order. Consequently, both review petitions were dismissed by the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Dismissal of Review Petitions: Court Upholds Interest Refund Order, Cites Procedural Lapses.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84097</link>
      <description>In the matter under review, the High Court dismissed the review petitions filed by the parties. The Court held that no grounds were established for seeking a review of the order directing the refund of interest amount. The Court observed that the insufficient time to check calculations during the initial proceedings cannot be a ground for review. Regarding a letter from January 2014, which the Review Petitioner admitted was not brought to the Court&#039;s notice earlier, the Court stated that while it can be relied upon in the enquiry to fix responsibility for non-renewal of FD, it does not warrant a review of the Court&#039;s order. Consequently, both review petitions were dismissed by the High Court.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 08:58:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>