<?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 (9) TMI 1335 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778846</link>
    <description>A writ petition challenging an order-in-original was declined because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal. The alleged violation of natural justice, including service defects, did not show any patent breach sufficient to bypass the alternate remedy rule, and the double taxation plea was treated as an arguable issue for the appellate authority. The HC therefore left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2025 08:29:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=853776" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (9) TMI 1335 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778846</link>
      <description>A writ petition challenging an order-in-original was declined because the petitioner had an efficacious statutory appeal. The alleged violation of natural justice, including service defects, did not show any patent breach sufficient to bypass the alternate remedy rule, and the double taxation plea was treated as an arguable issue for the appellate authority. The HC therefore left the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>