<?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 (9) TMI 1273 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799247</link>
    <description>Verification of the asserted completion of the Rule 88C process was necessary before adjudicating liability under Section 73. The response containing relevant details required examination to determine whether Rule 88C had concluded in the petitioner&#039;s favour and, if so, whether that conclusion affected the sustainability of the Section 73 proceedings. The adjudication order was quashed and remanded for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 07:32:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=923931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 1273 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799247</link>
      <description>Verification of the asserted completion of the Rule 88C process was necessary before adjudicating liability under Section 73. The response containing relevant details required examination to determine whether Rule 88C had concluded in the petitioner&#039;s favour and, if so, whether that conclusion affected the sustainability of the Section 73 proceedings. The adjudication order was quashed and remanded for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=799247</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>