<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>taxesinindia &#187; HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/category/high-court-judgements/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:33:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>ENTRY 49 LIST-II OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/12/21/entry-49-list-ii-of-constitution-of-india/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=entry-49-list-ii-of-constitution-of-india</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/12/21/entry-49-list-ii-of-constitution-of-india/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 05:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMMOVABLE PROPERTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SERVICE TAX]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/?p=693</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &#38; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH S/SHRI Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. SHUBH TIMB STEELS LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA C.W.P. No. 11597 of 2010 (O &#38; M), decided on 22-11-2010 Renting of Immovable Property service- Retrospective amendment, validity of- Renting of immovable property itself made a taxable [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/12/21/entry-49-list-ii-of-constitution-of-india/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RULE 6(3)(B) OF CENVAT CREDIT RULES, 2004</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/06/07/rule-63b-of-cenvat-credit-rules-2004/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rule-63b-of-cenvat-credit-rules-2004</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/06/07/rule-63b-of-cenvat-credit-rules-2004/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:19:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CENVAT CREDIT rULE 6(3)(B)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC 11 AC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/?p=659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB &#38; HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH, while dismssing the appeal filed by the CCEX LUDHIANA vs SANGRUR AGRO LTD. in C.E.A. No.40 of 2007, on 9.2.2010, it was held as follows: - QUOTE: The short question is whether the respndent is liable to pay penalty and interest on the excess amount [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/06/07/rule-63b-of-cenvat-credit-rules-2004/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>INVOCATION OF DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/24/invocation-of-discretionary-jurisdiction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=invocation-of-discretionary-jurisdiction</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/24/invocation-of-discretionary-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 04:06:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[isretionary jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palpable injustice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[root of the jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ultra vires]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/24/invocation-of-discretionary-jurisdiction/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DELHI H.C. while deciding the writ petition no. 11435 of 2009 on 4.9.2009 in re: BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs DELHI DEV. AUTHORITY observed as follows: - QUOTE: This cannot be disputed that as to when a discretionary juridiction is to be exercised or refused to be exercised by the High Court, it is to be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/24/invocation-of-discretionary-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MAKING A REFRENCE TO FULL BENCH</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/24/making-a-refrence-to-full-bench/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=making-a-refrence-to-full-bench</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/24/making-a-refrence-to-full-bench/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 226]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[REFERENCE TO THIRD MEMBER]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/?p=649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[DELHI HIGH COURT while deciding the W.P.(C) No.1210/2003 on 20.2.2010 in re: BRIG. V.K. ANAND vs UNION OF INDIA observed as follows: QUOTE: When the two judges decided the writ petition under Article 226, which is in the nature of original proceedings, differed on a question of fact or law, reference to a third judge [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/24/making-a-refrence-to-full-bench/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>STAY/DISPENSATION OF PRE-DEPOSIT</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/staydispensation-of-pre-deposit/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=staydispensation-of-pre-deposit</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/staydispensation-of-pre-deposit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DISPENSATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ERROR IN ORDER MANIFEST ON RECORD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRE-DEPOST]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRIMA FACIE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[STAY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNDUE HARDSHIP]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/staydispensation-of-pre-deposit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, while deciding on 29.8.09 the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1793 of 3008 in re: VIRENDER KUMAR YADAV vs UNION OF INDIA, it was observed as follows:- QUOTE: From various judicial pronouncements on this issue, the position which emerges is that the Tribunal while considering any application for waiver of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/staydispensation-of-pre-deposit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CLAUSE (O) OF SECTION 111 OF CUSTOMS ACT, 1962</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confiscation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CUSTOMS ACT 1962]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PENALTY]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC 111(O)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding on 24.9.09 the Customs Application No.9 of 2001 in re: COMMR. OF CUS. [PREVENTIVE] vs LEELA SCOTTISH LACE PVT. LTD, it was held as follows:- QUOTE: It would be clear that what the Supreme Court has held that Clause (o) of Section 111 of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/03/07/clause-o-of-section-111-of-customs-act-1962/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DISPUTE INVOLVING PSU &#8211; COD CLEARANCE NOT TAKEN</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/02/21/dispute-involving-psu-cod-clearance-not-taken/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dispute-involving-psu-cod-clearance-not-taken</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/02/21/dispute-involving-psu-cod-clearance-not-taken/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:25:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[COMMITTEE ON DISPUTES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ENTITIES OF THE STATE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[INJUNCT THE PROSECUTION]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/02/21/dispute-involving-psu-cod-clearance-not-taken/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, the C.M. No. 1180 of 2008 in ITR 23 of 1989 was decided on 23.10.2009 in re: COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs MMTC OF INDIA, with the following observations: - QUOTE: We are of the view that the application is without merit, for more than one reason. First, the right [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/02/21/dispute-involving-psu-cod-clearance-not-taken/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/01/24/chief-judicial-magistrate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=chief-judicial-magistrate</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/01/24/chief-judicial-magistrate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:01:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[complete derelictgion of duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credibility of criminal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/01/24/chief-judicial-magistrate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AT GOA, while deciding on 27.3.2008 the Criminal appeal no. 39 of 2006 in re: ASST. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS [PREV.], GOA vs ANTHONY SEBASTIAN L D&#8217;SOUZA,  it was observed as follows:- QUOTE: A peruslal of the judgement clearly supports the contention of the appellant that there is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2010/01/24/chief-judicial-magistrate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DELHI HIGH COURT RAPS MOBILE PHONE OPERATORS</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/22/delhi-high-court-raps-mobile-phone-operators/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=delhi-high-court-raps-mobile-phone-operators</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/22/delhi-high-court-raps-mobile-phone-operators/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRIVATE BANKS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRIVATE CELL OPERATORS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UNHEALTHY MARKETING PRACTICES]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/22/delhi-high-court-raps-mobile-phone-operators/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ON TUESDAY [21.12.09] the DELHI HIGH COURT asked the Mobile Phone opertors to ensure that unsolicited commercial calls made by the companies or banks are reduced and eventually ended. The Bench directed operators to follow guidelines laid down by the Telecom Regulatory Authoirty of India [TRAI] on the subject. The High Court was hearing a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/22/delhi-high-court-raps-mobile-phone-operators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE / MAYHEM</title>
		<link>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/22/judicial-discipline-mayhem/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=judicial-discipline-mayhem</link>
		<comments>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/22/judicial-discipline-mayhem/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HIGHER COURTS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JUDICIAL MAYHEM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SUBORDINATE COURTS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/22/judicial-discipline-mayhem/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding on 19.11.09 the writ petition no. 8185 of 2009 in re: TATA MOTORS LTD vs UNION OF INDIA, it was observed as follows:- QUOTE: We are at pains to understand the approach of the learned Tribunal. Judgements of high Courts considering judicial discipline have to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.taxesinindia.com/blog/2009/12/22/judicial-discipline-mayhem/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

