<?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 (12) TMI 664 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446980</link>
    <description>The HC examined a tax dispute involving service of notices and natural justice principles. The court found factual complexities beyond summary adjudication under Article 226. It directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, with provisions for de-freezing the bank account after mandatory pre-deposit. The court preserved all parties&#039; contentions while guiding procedural resolution without deciding substantive merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2025 18:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=735285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 664 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446980</link>
      <description>The HC examined a tax dispute involving service of notices and natural justice principles. The court found factual complexities beyond summary adjudication under Article 226. It directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, with provisions for de-freezing the bank account after mandatory pre-deposit. The court preserved all parties&#039; contentions while guiding procedural resolution without deciding substantive merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>