<?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>2025 (3) TMI 821 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767435</link>
    <description>The appellate orders were quashed and set aside because the controversy was already covered by an earlier Division Bench order of the same HC. The competent authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner&#039;s claim afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. All contentions and remedies were left open, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2025 08:35:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=806971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 821 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767435</link>
      <description>The appellate orders were quashed and set aside because the controversy was already covered by an earlier Division Bench order of the same HC. The competent authority was directed to reconsider the petitioner&#039;s claim afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024. All contentions and remedies were left open, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>