<?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 (10) TMI 105 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779309</link>
    <description>HC declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it for failure to exhaust alternative and efficacious remedies. The court applied reasoning from a recent HC decision and referred to Supreme Court precedents on the requirement to pursue available remedies, noting that reliance on an unchallenged executive circular did not justify bypassing those remedies. Accordingly, the petition was refused on maintainability grounds and dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 105 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779309</link>
      <description>HC declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it for failure to exhaust alternative and efficacious remedies. The court applied reasoning from a recent HC decision and referred to Supreme Court precedents on the requirement to pursue available remedies, noting that reliance on an unchallenged executive circular did not justify bypassing those remedies. Accordingly, the petition was refused on maintainability grounds and dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779309</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>