<?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>2019 (8) TMI 375 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384186</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging a circular was disposed of after the Revenue stated that the petitioner&#039;s representation would be considered by the Commissioner. On that statement, the challenge did not survive for the present, and the Court kept all contentions open. The matter therefore ended without a substantive ruling on the circular&#039;s validity, with the petitioner left to pursue consideration of the representation before the Commissioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2019 07:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 375 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384186</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging a circular was disposed of after the Revenue stated that the petitioner&#039;s representation would be considered by the Commissioner. On that statement, the challenge did not survive for the present, and the Court kept all contentions open. The matter therefore ended without a substantive ruling on the circular&#039;s validity, with the petitioner left to pursue consideration of the representation before the Commissioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>