<?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 (12) TMI 1015 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390132</link>
    <description>Ad-interim restraint on a garnishee notice was modified where the underlying challenge to the Maharashtra Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 was pending before a Larger Bench and the State stated it would take no coercive steps. The Court noted that no amount was being recovered under the notice, that similarly situated petitioners had not been singled out, and that the petitioner&#039;s financial viability supported relief. It accepted that keeping the bank account amount locked served no useful purpose when recovery was not being pursued, and continued the restraint in terms of the petitioners&#039; prayer while recording the State&#039;s assurance against coercive action.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2019 09:40:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 1015 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390132</link>
      <description>Ad-interim restraint on a garnishee notice was modified where the underlying challenge to the Maharashtra Tax (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2017 was pending before a Larger Bench and the State stated it would take no coercive steps. The Court noted that no amount was being recovered under the notice, that similarly situated petitioners had not been singled out, and that the petitioner&#039;s financial viability supported relief. It accepted that keeping the bank account amount locked served no useful purpose when recovery was not being pursued, and continued the restraint in terms of the petitioners&#039; prayer while recording the State&#039;s assurance against coercive action.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390132</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>