<?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>2024 (10) TMI 1035 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760436</link>
    <description>Payment made on the day revenue officers visited the premises, before adjudication of the alleged GST liability, could not be treated as a voluntary discharge of a concluded tax demand. The pending show cause notice and incomplete adjudication showed that the liability had not been finally determined. The petitioner was therefore held entitled to refund of the amount, with simple interest at 6% per annum if refund was not made within two weeks.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 16:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=774641" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1035 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760436</link>
      <description>Payment made on the day revenue officers visited the premises, before adjudication of the alleged GST liability, could not be treated as a voluntary discharge of a concluded tax demand. The pending show cause notice and incomplete adjudication showed that the liability had not been finally determined. The petitioner was therefore held entitled to refund of the amount, with simple interest at 6% per annum if refund was not made within two weeks.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760436</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>