<?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>2021 (8) TMI 1435 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461332</link>
    <description>Continued retention of compensation-linked TDS amounts after clear notice of the governing legal position, without bona fide justification or due diligence, amounted to wilful disobedience and civil contempt because it substantially interfered with the due course of justice. The Court held that a successor officer remains responsible for completing unfinished official action and rejected the explanation offered as a valid defence. Although an unconditional apology was tendered and the amount had been deposited, imprisonment was found unnecessary. The respondent was therefore held guilty of civil contempt, with punishment confined to a personal fine and costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2025 17:04:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=810401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 1435 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461332</link>
      <description>Continued retention of compensation-linked TDS amounts after clear notice of the governing legal position, without bona fide justification or due diligence, amounted to wilful disobedience and civil contempt because it substantially interfered with the due course of justice. The Court held that a successor officer remains responsible for completing unfinished official action and rejected the explanation offered as a valid defence. Although an unconditional apology was tendered and the amount had been deposited, imprisonment was found unnecessary. The respondent was therefore held guilty of civil contempt, with punishment confined to a personal fine and costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461332</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>