<?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>2018 (10) TMI 830 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368864</link>
    <description>The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 31st March, 2017, as the Petitioner had an effective alternative remedy available before the Appellate Authority. The Court emphasized the principle that when a statutory forum existed for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ultimately dismissing all the petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:43:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538472" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 830 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368864</link>
      <description>The Court declined to interfere with the impugned order dated 31st March, 2017, as the Petitioner had an effective alternative remedy available before the Appellate Authority. The Court emphasized the principle that when a statutory forum existed for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ultimately dismissing all the petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368864</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>