<?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 (8) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441027</link>
    <description>Contempt requires clear, intentional disobedience of a court order; a departmental communication and garnishee notice that do not obstruct sale of the secured asset or prevent recovery by the secured creditor will not amount to wilful breach. On the facts described, the earlier order had recognised the secured creditor&#039;s position and permitted realisation from the secured asset, while the impugned notice did not frustrate those rights or disclose deliberate non-compliance. The surrounding conduct and circumstances also negatived any bona fide basis for contempt. The petition was therefore rejected and contempt proceedings were declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2023 08:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=721138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441027</link>
      <description>Contempt requires clear, intentional disobedience of a court order; a departmental communication and garnishee notice that do not obstruct sale of the secured asset or prevent recovery by the secured creditor will not amount to wilful breach. On the facts described, the earlier order had recognised the secured creditor&#039;s position and permitted realisation from the secured asset, while the impugned notice did not frustrate those rights or disclose deliberate non-compliance. The surrounding conduct and circumstances also negatived any bona fide basis for contempt. The petition was therefore rejected and contempt proceedings were declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441027</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>