<?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>2022 (12) TMI 1106 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431989</link>
    <description>A writ petition was not rejected for alternate remedy or delay because no alternate remedy was shown with specificity and repeated representations negatived fatal laches. Under Section 194(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, refund of octroi turned on substantive compliance with the written declaration requirement and certification by the empowered officer. The Court treated certification by the Octroi Inspector as a procedural step rather than a condition precedent, and held that omission of that procedure could not defeat refund where the petitioner had otherwise satisfied the statutory conditions through the relevant contract and exemption documents. The rejection was therefore set aside and the refund claim upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Dec 2022 14:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 1106 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431989</link>
      <description>A writ petition was not rejected for alternate remedy or delay because no alternate remedy was shown with specificity and repeated representations negatived fatal laches. Under Section 194(2) of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, refund of octroi turned on substantive compliance with the written declaration requirement and certification by the empowered officer. The Court treated certification by the Octroi Inspector as a procedural step rather than a condition precedent, and held that omission of that procedure could not defeat refund where the petitioner had otherwise satisfied the statutory conditions through the relevant contract and exemption documents. The rejection was therefore set aside and the refund claim upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431989</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>