<?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 (8) TMI 584 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796711</link>
    <description>Delay in filing a statutory appeal was condoned in view of the disputed tax liability and the pre-deposit made with the appeal, allowing the appellate remedy to be pursued on merits. As the appeal was directed to be decided on merits, the consequential bank recovery notice could not continue and was quashed. The underlying tax liability remains open for determination by the appellate authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2026 08:32:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=916019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 584 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796711</link>
      <description>Delay in filing a statutory appeal was condoned in view of the disputed tax liability and the pre-deposit made with the appeal, allowing the appellate remedy to be pursued on merits. As the appeal was directed to be decided on merits, the consequential bank recovery notice could not continue and was quashed. The underlying tax liability remains open for determination by the appellate authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>