<?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>2015 (8) TMI 386 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262469</link>
    <description>Pending refund applications were directed to be processed expeditiously, and the decision was to be communicated within eight weeks. The Court declined to grant further adjournment and treated continued delay as undesirable, but it expressly left open the questions of maintainability and the merits of the refund claims. The operative relief was limited to a mandamus for timely administrative consideration, without any adjudication on entitlement to refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 07:42:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 386 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262469</link>
      <description>Pending refund applications were directed to be processed expeditiously, and the decision was to be communicated within eight weeks. The Court declined to grant further adjournment and treated continued delay as undesirable, but it expressly left open the questions of maintainability and the merits of the refund claims. The operative relief was limited to a mandamus for timely administrative consideration, without any adjudication on entitlement to refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=262469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>