<?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 (4) TMI 240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326126</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus for payment of a balance reward claimed by the petitioner, who disputed the reward amount determined by the Reward Committee. The court found the dispute over reward computation and the petitioner&#039;s refusal to provide specific figures of evasion beyond its writ jurisdiction. It suggested pursuing the matter through a civil suit for resolution, emphasizing the complexity of factual considerations. The court noted the availability of an alternate remedy and dismissed the petition due to the disputed nature of the claim and the significant time lapse since the initial payment date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2016 17:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 240 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326126</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus for payment of a balance reward claimed by the petitioner, who disputed the reward amount determined by the Reward Committee. The court found the dispute over reward computation and the petitioner&#039;s refusal to provide specific figures of evasion beyond its writ jurisdiction. It suggested pursuing the matter through a civil suit for resolution, emphasizing the complexity of factual considerations. The court noted the availability of an alternate remedy and dismissed the petition due to the disputed nature of the claim and the significant time lapse since the initial payment date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326126</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>