<?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>2023 (5) TMI 1010 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438203</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutionality of certain instructions and orders related to tax recovery. The court found that the department had acted reasonably in requiring payment before considering a stay on tax recovery. The petitioner&#039;s arguments regarding the legality of committee minutes and entitlement to stay without payment were also rejected. The court ordered the petitioner to pay costs to the Department within four weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 May 2023 18:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=714598" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 1010 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438203</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutionality of certain instructions and orders related to tax recovery. The court found that the department had acted reasonably in requiring payment before considering a stay on tax recovery. The petitioner&#039;s arguments regarding the legality of committee minutes and entitlement to stay without payment were also rejected. The court ordered the petitioner to pay costs to the Department within four weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>