<?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 (11) TMI 427 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780959</link>
    <description>Refund rejection was set aside because the later judicial authorities bearing on the limitation issue had not been considered when the orders were passed. The proper course was remand for fresh adjudication by the competent officer after taking those decisions into account and granting the claimant a personal hearing. The constitutional challenge to the rule was left open and was not finally examined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2025 08:30:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=863124" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 427 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780959</link>
      <description>Refund rejection was set aside because the later judicial authorities bearing on the limitation issue had not been considered when the orders were passed. The proper course was remand for fresh adjudication by the competent officer after taking those decisions into account and granting the claimant a personal hearing. The constitutional challenge to the rule was left open and was not finally examined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>