<?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>Petition dismissed as not maintainable; held collateral delay attempt, mala fide; petitioner ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000 costs</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93446</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the petition as not maintainable and awarded costs of Rs.2,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the respondent within four weeks. The court held the claim for release/provision of originals seized during searches was impermissible because identical relief had already been granted by the Apex Court and there is no allegation of non-compliance nor any fresh cause of action. The petition was characterised as a collateral attempt to delay adjudication; reliance on statutory-document preparation by officers was rejected. The court noted the respondents had relied on statements of eleven witnesses, all produced in adjudication and already cross-examined by the petitioner, and found the petition misconceived and filed with mala fides.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=859138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Petition dismissed as not maintainable; held collateral delay attempt, mala fide; petitioner ordered to pay Rs.2,00,000 costs</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93446</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the petition as not maintainable and awarded costs of Rs.2,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the respondent within four weeks. The court held the claim for release/provision of originals seized during searches was impermissible because identical relief had already been granted by the Apex Court and there is no allegation of non-compliance nor any fresh cause of action. The petition was characterised as a collateral attempt to delay adjudication; reliance on statutory-document preparation by officers was rejected. The court noted the respondents had relied on statements of eleven witnesses, all produced in adjudication and already cross-examined by the petitioner, and found the petition misconceived and filed with mala fides.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 08:08:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=93446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>