<?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 (9) TMI 709 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443087</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC did not adjudicate the legality of the recovery notice on merits. It directed the tax authority to consider the petitioner&#039;s representations, the pending insolvency-related proceedings and the material on record, and to take a reasoned decision on whether the impugned notice should be withdrawn. The authority was also required to decide the matter within the stipulated time, while all contentions of the parties were kept open.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:44:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=726282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (9) TMI 709 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443087</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC did not adjudicate the legality of the recovery notice on merits. It directed the tax authority to consider the petitioner&#039;s representations, the pending insolvency-related proceedings and the material on record, and to take a reasoned decision on whether the impugned notice should be withdrawn. The authority was also required to decide the matter within the stipulated time, while all contentions of the parties were kept open.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>