<?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>2026 (4) TMI 1435 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790366</link>
    <description>An ex parte order-in-original was set aside because the petitioner had not been given an effective opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice. The consequential recovery notice also fell with the adjudication. Following the approach taken in earlier writ proceedings on an identical factual matrix, the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice for fresh consideration, with all contentions left open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:52:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 1435 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790366</link>
      <description>An ex parte order-in-original was set aside because the petitioner had not been given an effective opportunity to file a reply to the show-cause notice. The consequential recovery notice also fell with the adjudication. Following the approach taken in earlier writ proceedings on an identical factual matrix, the matter was remitted to the stage of reply to the show-cause notice for fresh consideration, with all contentions left open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>