<?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>2017 (3) TMI 487 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339984</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner bank, a secured creditor, holding that it had a priority claim over the statutory dues claimed by the state. The court quashed the notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and set aside related notices to the Reserve Bank of India. The court made the rule absolute, with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 487 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339984</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the petitioner bank, a secured creditor, holding that it had a priority claim over the statutory dues claimed by the state. The court quashed the notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and set aside related notices to the Reserve Bank of India. The court made the rule absolute, with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>