<?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 1321 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760722</link>
    <description>HC ruled that while there was a prima facie procedural irregularity in document disclosure, the Petitioner was not completely denied natural justice. The court directed provision of seized document copies and mandated the Petitioner to exhaust alternate remedies by filing an appeal within six weeks to the Commissioner (Appeals), preserving all substantive arguments while disposing of the original petition without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 May 2025 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=775539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (10) TMI 1321 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760722</link>
      <description>HC ruled that while there was a prima facie procedural irregularity in document disclosure, the Petitioner was not completely denied natural justice. The court directed provision of seized document copies and mandated the Petitioner to exhaust alternate remedies by filing an appeal within six weeks to the Commissioner (Appeals), preserving all substantive arguments while disposing of the original petition without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>