<?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>2016 (2) TMI 244 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271539</link>
    <description>The court held that the respondents were unjustified in rejecting the issuance of C-Forms to the petitioner, Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. The order dated 12th June 2015 was set aside, directing the respondents to issue the C-Forms within three weeks. If an indemnity bond in a revised format was needed, the respondents were to inform the petitioner within two weeks. The writ petition and application were disposed of accordingly for immediate implementation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=415830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 244 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271539</link>
      <description>The court held that the respondents were unjustified in rejecting the issuance of C-Forms to the petitioner, Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. The order dated 12th June 2015 was set aside, directing the respondents to issue the C-Forms within three weeks. If an indemnity bond in a revised format was needed, the respondents were to inform the petitioner within two weeks. The writ petition and application were disposed of accordingly for immediate implementation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>