<?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>1986 (2) TMI 312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154567</link>
    <description>Forfeiture orders for the period up to 15 July 1962 were held not to be bad in law, following the Court&#039;s earlier ruling on the same point. The referred question was answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The reference was dealt with only on the forfeiture issue, and the remaining question was not answered.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2013 16:47:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (2) TMI 312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154567</link>
      <description>Forfeiture orders for the period up to 15 July 1962 were held not to be bad in law, following the Court&#039;s earlier ruling on the same point. The referred question was answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The reference was dealt with only on the forfeiture issue, and the remaining question was not answered.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154567</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>