<?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 (3) TMI 486 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325302</link>
    <description>An unreasoned Tribunal order that merely recorded rival submissions without deciding the grounds on merits could not stand, because a judicial or quasi-judicial determination must give reasons, particularly where issues of jurisdiction, limitation, penalty, and statutory liability are raised. The Bombay High Court quashed the order, set it aside, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits, leaving all contentions open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 486 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325302</link>
      <description>An unreasoned Tribunal order that merely recorded rival submissions without deciding the grounds on merits could not stand, because a judicial or quasi-judicial determination must give reasons, particularly where issues of jurisdiction, limitation, penalty, and statutory liability are raised. The Bombay High Court quashed the order, set it aside, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits, leaving all contentions open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>