<?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>2003 (12) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47633</link>
    <description>The High Court declined to enter into the reference, as the issue of the demand being time-barred was settled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld, stating the extended limitation period did not apply to the respondent company. The Court dismissed the reference application and associated Misc. Civil Applications, citing lack of jurisdiction for interim relief in reference proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:20:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86151" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 80 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47633</link>
      <description>The High Court declined to enter into the reference, as the issue of the demand being time-barred was settled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld, stating the extended limitation period did not apply to the respondent company. The Court dismissed the reference application and associated Misc. Civil Applications, citing lack of jurisdiction for interim relief in reference proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>