<?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 (12) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762476</link>
    <description>A rejection of an appeal and rectification application based only on a non-serious defect in the supporting board resolution could not be sustained. The Bombay High Court held that the impugned orders were unjustified and required reconsideration on merits, especially where earlier interference had been taken in similar matters on substantially identical grounds. The orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after hearing both sides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=780093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762476</link>
      <description>A rejection of an appeal and rectification application based only on a non-serious defect in the supporting board resolution could not be sustained. The Bombay High Court held that the impugned orders were unjustified and required reconsideration on merits, especially where earlier interference had been taken in similar matters on substantially identical grounds. The orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after hearing both sides.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>